Injunctions?

tracey turnblad

Is it possible to take out an injunction to prevent something being reported in a newspaper eg details in a court case? Would the expenses be huge and prohibitive to an ordinary Joe soap? It’s the victim wishing for details not to be reported not the perpetrator

nuac

Tracey, think that one through

tracey turnblad

I don’t know what you mean,

Peregrinus

He means, if you apply for an injunction, that is itself a set of court proceedings that can be reported on. And, since it's a much more unusual set of proceedings, it's much more likely to be reported on. All you would do is attract attention to whatever it is you are trying not to attract attention to.

Reporting restrictions can be imposed in court proceedings, but usually only in fairly limited circumstances; in principle court proceedings are supposed to be public. You've given us no hint as to why you want to suppress reporting in this particular instance, or indeed what your status is in relation to the proceedings (Are you a party? A witness? Something else?) So it's not really possible to say whether you would have any chance of having reporting restricted.

If you were to try, you would seek what's called a super-injunction. This is an order which says (a) the media must not run a particular story about Mr X, and (b) the media may nor report that Mr X has obtained an injunction to suppress the story. They are normally obtained by celebrities who would be damaged not only by the publication of some alleged scandal, but by the knowledge that they are alleged to be involved in a scandal at all. They are extremely rare in the UK; I'm not aware if any have ever been granted in Ireland. There would be a least an interesting question as to their constitutionality, given the constitutional requirement that justice be administered in public. And, in practical terms, they tend not to be effective in supressing knowledge of the scandal; gossips gonna gossip.

tracey turnblad

Ok thank you. Unfortunately I cannot say what the case is about but it’s not dissimilar to one been spoken about on boards at the moment

Robbo

Just to add to this on the issue of costs. Yes, they would be quite large especially if you're trying to do it in a hurry.

The person seeking an injunction has to give an undertaking regarding damages in the event that the defendant prevails when the matter goes to trial.

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm not aware if any have ever been granted in Ireland. There would be a least an interesting question as to their constitutionality, given the constitutional requirement that justice be administered in public.

Indeed I don't believe there has been any here, I would have though they would not be allowed here due to the constitution, but, in the O'Brien vs Red Flag Consulting Limited & Ors [2015] IEHC 867 High Court case Mr. Justice Mac Eochaidh seems to suggest they can happen:-

6. A litigant may persuade a court that it is necessary to move in exceptional and extraordinary ways to protect evidence and even in some circumstances to grant “super injunctions” directing that the existence of the proceedings not be revealed. Such orders have been made in the United Kingdom and there are academics who argue that such orders may be made in this jurisdiction.

The first parts seems to contradict the second part in that he is saying they CAN happen, but the second part seems to suggest he is saying it is only an argument to be made.



That said in the Philpott vs Irish Examiner Limited [2016] IEHC 62 High Court case Mr. Justice Barrett's emphasis says it can't happen (at least in relation to the Defamation Act):-

Part 3: The Nature of the Application Now Made

3. The within application is brought pursuant to s.33 of the Defamation Act 2009. That provision allows the court to make an order prohibiting the publication of a defamatory statement. So far as relevant to the within application, it provides:

33. - (1) The High Court…may upon the application of the plaintiff, make an order prohibiting the publication or further publication of the statement in respect of which application was made if in its opinion -

(a) the statement is defamatory, and
(b) the defendant has no defence to the action that is reasonably likely to succeed.

(2) Where an order is made under this section it shall not operate to prohibit the reporting of the making of that order [so no ‘super-injunctions’] provided that such reporting does not include the publication of the statement to which the order relates.

(3) In this section ‘order’ means
(a) an interim order,
(bb) an interlocutory order, or
(c) a permanent order."

tracey turnblad

Maybe an injunction isn’t the right word. I’m looking to protect the victim. I don’t want made public the charges against the perpetrator as it would be detrimental to the victim. The victim will not be named but people who know about what happened the victim will know exactly what they went through which the victim wants to keep private. I know it sounds like I’m talking in riddles and I apologize for that, obviously for legal reasons I cannot say anymore. Details about this case have already been made public that’s why I’m looking to have the rest of the details not made public to protect the victim. I know this is probably not possible but I will try anything to prevent further damage I am the complainant in this case

Victor

Certainly in sex abuse cases and family law cases, the names of victims are protected. Sometimes that even means not identifying the perpetrator publicly.

Peregrinus wrote: »

There would be a least an interesting question as to their constitutionality, given the constitutional requirement that justice be administered in public.

It has been argued on this forum that "administered in public" does not necessarily mean published in the media - more that anyone can attend the hearing, etc.

GM228 wrote: »

The first parts seems to contradict the second part in that he is saying they CAN happen, but the second part seems to suggest he is saying it is only an argument to be made.

Remember the courts have to balance rights, especially constitutional rights. I think the judge is saying that they might be possible, but the case would have to stand on its own merits and that he isn't getting into it in Red Flag.