Twitter aflutter over UK super-injunctions‎

 

The debate over super-injunctions granted by UK judges has taken a new turn with a Twitter user listing celebrities who have allegedly taken out the gagging orders.

 

The account on the social media site named six separate cases of actors, television presenters, a chef and a footballer, in an apparent effort to undermine the effectiveness of so-called super-injunctions being granted by British courts. The posts rapidly garnered the user more than 20,000 followers.

 

The posts’ accuracy was called into question, however, when Jemima Khan, former girlfriend of Hugh Grant and one of the celebrities named, denied through her own Twitter account that she had taken out a super-injunction.

 

The posts come amid mounting debate over super-injunctions. At least 30 such orders, which prevent the identification of the person or business seeking the tough court order in addition to the substance, are thought to have been granted by the high court enabling the rich and famous to protect their private lives.

 

Lord Neuberger, the master of the rolls – one of the UK’s most senior judges, is scheduled to publish imminently a report on the subject after David Cameron, prime minister, said he was “uneasy” over judges rather than parliament creating a de facto privacy law by granting the orders.

 

“There’s a battle between the courts and three entities: the internet, newspapers and politicians, all of which in their different ways could be said to be seeking to erode the effectiveness of such injunctions,” said Dan Tench, a media partner at Olswang, a London-based law firm. “I don’t think posts on Twitter are likely to undermine privacy injunctions. In reality, there are numerous postings on social media sites and elsewhere on the internet, most of which are inaccurate.”

 

There was a difference between anonymous users and newspapers disclosing identities, he said.

 

The Twitter poster, who uses the name Billy Jones, could face prison or an unlimited fine for being in contempt of court – if he or she is tracked down – Mr. Tench said. Twitter wouldn’t have liability as an intermediary as long as it took measures to prevent the publication of illegal material as soon as it became aware of it, he said.

 

A call to Twitter was not immediately returned.

 

http://www.ft.com

Twitter is making law makers look out of date.

 

Twitter user in bid to break super-injunctions

 

A Twitter user has tried to unmask some celebrities who have obtained super-injunctions to prevent publication of details of their private lives.

 

The Twitter user claimed to "out" a number of UK public figures, but the tweets appeared to contain errors. Campaigner Jemima Khan denied getting a super-injunction to stop publication of "intimate" photos of herself and Jeremy Clarkson, in her own Twitter response.

 

The tweets will add to concerns over injunctions and non-mainstream media. Ms Khan issued her response on Twitter after the claims appeared on the micro-blogging website on Sunday. She tweeted: "Rumour that I have a super injunction preventing publication of "intimate" photos of me and Jeremy Clarkson. NOT TRUE!"

 

In a later tweet, she said: "I hope the people who made this story up realise that my sons will be bullied at school because of it. Plus I'm getting vile hate tweets."

 

Super-injunctions have been issued by the courts to protect people from what they see as their right to privacy from the press. Even the fact that an injunction has been granted, or the name of the person applying for it, must be kept secret.

 

Some newspapers - and MPs - have attempted to challenge the court orders, suggesting it should be Parliament and not the courts which decide on the introduction of any privacy law.

 

Last month, Prime Minister David Cameron said the increasing use of such strict gagging orders made him feel uneasy. A report by a committee set up by the Master of the Rolls - the most senior civil law judge at the Court of Appeal - will report on their use later this month.

 

BBC legal correspondent Clive Coleman said it will have to grapple with the issue of publication online. "If it doesn't the super or secret-injunction may no longer be an effective tool in the administration of justice," he said.

 

Media lawyer Charlotte Harris, of Mishcon de Reya, said the stories subject to super-injunctions were quite often cases of "nasty blackmail".

 

She said: "You should be allowed to end a relationship with somebody, whether you are married or not, without having that person say 'right, I'm going to go to the paper, I'm going to destroy your life, I'm going to tell everybody every intimate thing about you'.

 

"You should have some protection."

 

A lawyer who acts for newspapers suggested the "viral effect" of postings on social media websites could make a "mockery" of super-injunctions.

 

Niri Shan, head of media law at Taylor Wessing, added: "You can get an allegation that is made but before you know... it goes to potentially millions of people. Although people don't take these allegations as seriously as newspapers they certainly have a detrimental effect."

 

Helen Wood, the former escort girl caught up in one of the cases involving an actor, said super-injunctions allowed wealthy male celebrities to behave as they wanted and set a "bad example". But she told BBC Radio 5 Live publishing "innocent" names on Twitter was the "wrong way to go about doing things".

 

"Injunctions have been put there for a purpose," she said. "Obviously, I don't agree with them and I am certainly not a fan of them by any means, but to publicise them like that on Twitter without actual proof... I think they are doing the wrong thing."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13330409

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMAz85c3blc]YouTube - Louise Bagshawe MP on super injunctions (22Apr11)[/ame]

quite right Mr Hislop. Here's a view I also agree with.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8c2HTd6atg]YouTube - Super injunctions 'are discriminatory'[/ame]

 

"Technology winning hands down".

The law is gonna change and John Terry/Van Rooney are going to get caught out playing away again.

I honestly don't understand how we got to a stage where super injunctions exist in our society. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Mr Brooker tried to warn against it back in 2009

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/19/charlie-brooker-super-injunctions

Sir Fred Goodwin has been revealed in Parliament to have obtained an injunction

 

Inunction lifted for former RBS boss Sir Fred Goodwin

 

An order granting anonymity to ex-Royal Bank of Scotland boss Sir Fred Goodwin has been lifted at the High Court.

 

The existence of Sir Fred's injunction had already been made public by an MP using parliamentary privilege.

 

The High Court ruling followed a further intervention by Lord Stoneham who used parliamentary privilege to reveal more details to peers.

 

The BBC's Clive Coleman discussed the background to the case.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13462172

Media concession expected in injunction report

 

A report by a top judge is likely to recommend the media are allowed into court when injunctions and so-called super-injunctions are being sought.

 

But Lord Neuberger, the most senior civil judge in England and Wales, is expected to say the media will still be restricted over what they can report.

 

It comes after the High Court partially lifted an injunction given to ex-Royal Bank of Scotland head Sir Fred Goodwin.

 

Downing Street said the government would consider the report carefully.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13465286

The law is gonna change and John Terry/Van Rooney are going to get caught out playing away again.

 

Don't forget the Welsh player.:rolleyes:

what's Robbie Savage been upto now :rolleyes:

what's Robbie Savage been upto now :rolleyes:

 

Retirement?:rolleyes:

what's Robbie Savage been upto now :rolleyes:

 

Being the clown on 606 on Satuday evenings on Radio 5 Live. I find him hilarious! I remember a bizarre call at the start of the season where a caller called up saying he saw Robbie Savage buying 7 pairs of trainers and getting a kid to carry them round the shop for him! The row starts at 2 minutes.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy47pO7kqJ4&feature=related]YouTube - ‪606 Caller Confronts Robbie Savage Sat, 28 Aug 2010‬‏[/ame]

 

Twitter Inc., Unknown Posters, being sued by 'CTB' at UK High Court

 

Twitter and some of its users have been served with an injunction by lawyers representing a premier league footballer, believed to be the same player who upheld an injunction against the Sun and former Big Brother contestant Imogen Thomas earlier this week concerning an alleged affair with Thomas.

 

The footballer is referred to in the court papers filed today only as "CTB", the same initials used in a previous high court hearing earlier this week, with the defendants listed as Twitter Inc, and Persons Unknown.

 

The "persons unknown" are described as those "responsible for the publication of information on the Twitter accounts".

 

The legal action, which was launched in the high court on Wednesday, is believed to be the first against the US social media site.

 

Earlier this month a series of messages were posted on the site claiming to divulge details of superinjunctions obtained by celebrities.

 

No one from Schillings, the law firm representing "CTB", or from Twitter was available to comment.

 

http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/twitter-sued-by-footballer-over-superinjunction-breach/s2/a544253/

 

Twitter Inc., Unknown Posters, being sued by 'CTB' at UK High Court

 

Twitter and some of its users have been served with an injunction by lawyers representing a premier league footballer, believed to be the same player who upheld an injunction against the Sun and former Big Brother contestant Imogen Thomas earlier this week concerning an alleged affair with Thomas.

 

The footballer is referred to in the court papers filed today only as "CTB", the same initials used in a previous high court hearing earlier this week, with the defendants listed as Twitter Inc, and Persons Unknown.

 

The "persons unknown" are described as those "responsible for the publication of information on the Twitter accounts".

 

The legal action, which was launched in the high court on Wednesday, is believed to be the first against the US social media site.

 

Earlier this month a series of messages were posted on the site claiming to divulge details of superinjunctions obtained by celebrities.

 

No one from Schillings, the law firm representing "CTB", or from Twitter was available to comment.

 

http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/twitter-sued-by-footballer-over-superinjunction-breach/s2/a544253/

 

Footballer with super injunction aka CTB aka Ryan Giggs.

Being the clown on 606 on Satuday evenings on Radio 5 Live. I find him hilarious! I remember a bizarre call at the start of the season where a caller called up saying he saw Robbie Savage buying 7 pairs of trainers and getting a kid to carry them round the shop for him! The row starts at 2 minutes. [/url]

he's a LIAR. It was only 6 pairs :lol:

They're wasting their time.:rolleyes:

Now they want to gag Parliament! Judges want to stop Press reporting debates

 

 

By Daily Mail Reporter

 

Last updated at 5:17 PM on 20th May 2011

 

 

 

• Contempt of court threat to media if reports of Parliament 'intend' to break injunctions
  
• Injunctions granted to stars should constantly be kept under review, panel says
  
• 'Modern technology is totally out of control', committee says
  

Lord Judge, pictured today, admitted it was impossible to gag social networking sites such as Twitter

 

The most senior judges in England and Wales were today caught up in a row with MPs about whether the Press should be allowed to report parliamentary debates in full.

The Lord Chief Justice said newspapers could be found in contempt of court for merely reporting what was said in Parliament.

Lord Judge said the media are only protected from prosecution if statements are published ‘in good faith and without malice’.

Yesterday Liberal Democrat peer Lord Stoneham of Droxford used Parliamentary privilege to claim RBS former chief executive Sir Fred ‘The Shred’ Goodwin had an affair with a senior colleague.

 

This led to a partial lifting of the injunction hiding the relationship and the ensuing coverage by the media.

MPs have claimed that the alleged affair could have affected the Royal Bank of Scotland chief executive’s judgment as the bank collapsed.

The review comes after Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming recently highlighted two cases in parliament.

Last month he asked in the House of Commons about an order obtained by former Royal Bank of Scotland chief Sir Fred Goodwin, which banned the media from calling him a banker, and about another order which banned a constituent from talking to his MP.

Mr Hemming said today the review was an 'attempt to gag the media in discussing the proceedings in parliament' and was a 'a retrograde step'.

'What I find disappointing is that there does not seem to be any recognition by the committee that perhaps there is too much secrecy.'

Senior Tory David Davis agreed with him. 'The judges are wrong in any implicit or explicit criticism of parliamentarians who use privilege to expose the existence of super-injunctions,' he said.

 

 

Fred Goodwin has been married to Lady Joyce for 20 years

 

 

 

 

Lord Stoneham, pictured yesterday, left, revealed details of Sir Fred's court order in the House of Lords. Earlier this month John Hemming MP, right, asked in the Commons about an order obtained by Sir Fred, which banned the media from calling him a banker

 

 

'If it were not for both Lords and MPs being able to speak openly about super-injunctions, the public would still be largely unaware of this and other misuses of judicial procedure.'

 

More...

 

 

• Why we DO have a right to know about Sir Fred's affair: RBS chief had sexual relationship with married senior colleague on eve of £45billion collapse
  
• Shredded: Sir Fred Goodwin's wife is grim-faced as her husband's alleged affair is made public
  

 

But other MPs cautioned against the use of parliamentary privilege to break injunctions.

Chuka Umunna, a parliamentary aide to Labour leader Ed Miliband used Twitter to express his concerns about the 'abuse' of parliamentary privilege.

The Streatham MP wrote: 'I do not think it is desirable or healthy for parliamentarians to abuse parliamentary privilege to break court injunctions.'

He added: 'If MPs and peers use parliamentary privilege to flout court injunctions, that is a serious breach of the separation of powers in my view.'

Earlier, Lord Judge said that senior judges would be holding talks with the speakers of the Commons and the Lords over the issue.

He said: ‘It will take quite an effort for Parliament to get a grip on this.'

The 12-strong committee headed by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, admitted that too many gagging orders have been allowed in recent years.

A landmark report found there were justifiable concerns that a form of 'permanent secret justice' had begun to develop in Britain since 2010.

Lord Judge, said injunctions would only be issued in future when 'strictly necessary' — so as to protect freedom of speech.

Although the grip of privacy law prevents newspapers and broadcasters from naming those with gagging orders, the committee admitted that it was impossible to prevent stars being outed on social networking sites.

Lord Judge also condemned 'liars' who use Twitter to break injunctions, declaring: 'Modern technology is totally out of control. Anybody can put anything on it.'

 

Report: Lord Neuberger, Master of the Rolls, left, and Lord Judge said in the long-awaited report that injunctions should be used only sparingly

 

Gagging order: An actor who allegedly slept with prostitute Helen Wood is one of a number of celebrities who has taken out an injunction

 

An anonymous Twitter user last week set up an account claiming to expose celebrities who have obtained injunctions in an attempt to get around court orders.

But the messages, which can be read by anyone online, were riddled with serious errors including false claims that socialite Jemima Khan had an affair with Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson.

She wrote on Twitter: 'I've woken up trapped in a bloody nightmare.'

Making reference to Lord Stoneham's comments yesterday, Lord Judge also turned his fire on politicians.

Speaking at the Royal Courts of Justice in London today, he said: 'You do need to think whether it's a very good idea for our law makers to be flouting a court order just because they disagree with a court order, or for that matter because they disagree with the law of privacy which Parliament has created.

'It's a very serious issue, in my view. Our constitutional arrangements have been based for centuries on mutual respect.'

But Lord Stoneham defended his decision yesterday to reveal Sir Fred's injunction over alleged affair. 'I accept that it would be always the exception and there would have to be very strong public interest,' he said.

The report comes after a string of high-profile cases where celebrities have gone to court in a bid to hide alleged affairs.

They include England football star John Terry and BBC presenter Andrew Marr, as well as a string of Premiership footballers.

The judges concluded that in future the media should be allowed into court during injunction hearings.

While not referring to any specific case, the Lord Chief Justice said injunctions which bar reporting of people's private lives would only be issued in future when 'strictly necessary'.

 

 

 

False accusations were made on Twitter that Jemina Khan (left) had taken out a gagging order to cover up an affair with Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson

 

 

He admitted too many such orders — some of which have barred disclosure even of their existence — had been handed out and vowed to uphold the 'treasured principle' of open justice.

Although Parliament has never debated a privacy law, Lord Judge said that by introducing human rights laws, Parliament had effectively brought one in.

He said the consequences of the legislation was ‘clearly explained to Parliament before the Human Rights Act was enacted’.

‘Contrary to some commentary, unelected judges in this country did not create privacy rights. They were created by Parliament,’ he added.

‘Now that they have been created, judges in this country cannot ignore or dispense with them: they must apply the law relating to privacy matters as created by Parliament.’

Lord Neuberger added: ‘Where privacy and confidentiality are involved, a degree of secrecy is often necessary to do justice.

‘However, where secrecy is ordered it should only be to the extent strictly necessary to achieve the interests of justice.’

David Cameron's official spokesman said the Government would now consider Lord Neuberger's report before deciding whether to legislate on privacy issues.

But Justice Secretary Ken Clarke and Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt are understood to have agreed at a meeting yesterday that a Privacy Act is not the way forward.

Instead, they agreed ministers would consider producing more detailed guidance for judges to interpret the Human Rights Act.

 

 

http://twitter.com/Chatty_Mum/status/71876960049053696

 

:laugh3:

 

 

http://twitter.com/Chatty_Mum/status/71876960049053696

 

:laugh3:

 

That's cast-iron proof (if any were needed) that people will always find a way around these injunctions, even if they have to resort to implication/insinuation or humour.

The courts can't win. Only the fat-cat lawyers will benefit from all the litigation. They must be rubbing their hands with glee!:rolleyes:

Type Giggs's name into google and he's trending like mad!

Type Giggs's name into google and he's trending like mad!

 

And tending to waste pots of cash.:rolleyes:

lol

 

there are some very creative people out there :lol: