This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/apr/15/judges-delay-celebrity-injunction-ruling

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Judges delay celebrity injunction ruling Judges delay celebrity injunction ruling
(35 minutes later)
Three senior judges have delayed their decision on whether to lift an injunction that could enable the media to identify a celebrity couple, one of whom was allegedly invoved in a threesome. Lawyers for News Group Newspapers, on behalf of the Sun On Sunday, had told the court of appeal that the celebrity had already been named so widely online and in publications in the US and Scotland that the injunction was effectively redundant and unenforceable.The court is now due to give its judgment on Monday morning and the injunction will remain in place in the meantime. The judges have indicated that even if they decided to lift the injunction, the court would not name the claimant in the case. Three senior judges have delayed their decision on whether to lift an injunction that could enable the media to identify a celebrity couple, one of whom was allegedly invoved in a threesome.
Lawyers for News Group Newspapers, on behalf of the Sun On Sunday, had told the court of appeal that the celebrity had already been named so widely online and in publications in the US and Scotland that the injunction was effectively redundant and unenforceable.
The court is now due to give its judgment on Monday morning and the injunction will remain in place in the meantime. The judges have indicated that even if they decided to lift the injunction, the court would not name the claimant in the case.
Earlier on Friday, the Guardian and other media organisations won the right to report on the appeal hearing, which has raised the issue of whether injunctions restricting reporting can be enforced in the era of the internet.Earlier on Friday, the Guardian and other media organisations won the right to report on the appeal hearing, which has raised the issue of whether injunctions restricting reporting can be enforced in the era of the internet.
Details of the supposed affair, involving one of the couple and another couple, have already been widely reported in publications beyond the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales. Details of the supposed affair, involving one of the couple and another couple, have already been widely reported in publications beyond the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales. Tabloids in London have printed headlines complaining that they could not report the story, with the Mail writing “Why the law is an ass!” on its front page just over a week ago.
A court in London had originally granted the injunction, preventing identification of those involved, against the Sun on Sunday newspaper. Judges said that naming the celebrity couple could harm their children.A court in London had originally granted the injunction, preventing identification of those involved, against the Sun on Sunday newspaper. Judges said that naming the celebrity couple could harm their children.
Gavin Millar QC, for News Group Newspapers, told the court of appeal on Friday that the interim injunction preventing publication should be lifted. “We say that the events of the past 10 days make it unlikely that the claimant will succeed at getting a permanent injunction at trial,” Millar told the court. According to the original anonymised judgment published in March, the case concerns an entertainer who has prevented a tabloid newspaper from printing details of his extramarital affairs.
But Desmond Browne QC, for the celebrity claimant who has only been identified by the initials PJS, accused sections of the press of whipping up hostility to the courts. A retrospective claim for damages would deny the claimant “the only form of relief that is worth having”, Browne told the hearing. The supposedly “well-known” individual, who is referred to in the judgment by the initials PJS, and his partner, referred to as YMA, are described as public figures. He is reported to have had a “three-way sexual encounter” with another couple more than four years ago. That couple then approached the Sun on Sunday in January this year and told it about their relationship with PJS. The paper, which planned to publish the story, contacted the entertainer’s lawyers, initiating the courtroom dispute.
The earlier judgment said the Sun on Sunday could not publish the story because the entertainer, who has an “open relationship”, had an expectation that his sexual encounters would remain private. At the time the ruling was seen as providing a more expansive interpretation of privacy in terms of sexual activity.
In court on Friday, Desmond Browne QC, for the claimant, said: “A court should never abandon the protection it has given the litigant on account of widespread attempts to render the protection ineffective.”
The court should not give in to “widespread disobedience or defiance”, he said. “It’s defiance that’s going on here.”
Browne said efforts by Google to remove URLs and online links to articles identifying the couple were being successful in reducing the availability of stories published outside England and Wales. “There’s some evidence that geo-blocking [restricting where links can be read] has been placed on some of the other URLs,” he said.
Gavin Millar QC, for New Group Newspapers, said: “The finger has been pointed at various media outlets, which Mr Browne characterised as an incitement to search for material on the internet.”
That was not true, Millar insisted. Rather, an American paper had published the details and then the story had spread across the internet. “What happens on the internet, happens on the internet,” he said. “Then the press report what’s happening on the internet.
“Attempts can be made to plug the hole in the dyke but they tend to be hopeless. There’s always the likelihood that if URLs are taken down, new ones will be started. The information has been published on foreign websites. Because of the [US constitution’s first amendment guaranteeing free speech] it’s not going to happen that any American websites are taken down.”
In his written submission to the court of appeal, Millar said: “At its heart is an argument about the hyprocrisy of wealthy public figures who use PR agencies and the media to promote a favourable personal and family image and then use their resources to prevent unwanted coverage. This important debate would be furthered by the identification of PJS and YMA [his spouse].”
But Browne accused sections of the press of whipping up hostility to the courts.
“The media, and I refer particularly to … the defendants and publishers of the Mail, have sought to ridicule the granting of the injunction,” he said.“The media, and I refer particularly to … the defendants and publishers of the Mail, have sought to ridicule the granting of the injunction,” he said.
One paper had printed a cut-out template for readers to send to their MPs demanding that restrictions on reporting the “celebrity threesome” be lifted.One paper had printed a cut-out template for readers to send to their MPs demanding that restrictions on reporting the “celebrity threesome” be lifted.
“Not all the secrecy had escaped,” Browne added. “There has been no mainstream publication in this jurisdiction [England and Wales] that directly infringes the order.” He maintained that the accessibility of the information online was not the same as it being readily available. “Not all the secrecy has escaped,” Browne said. “There has been no mainstream publication in this jurisdiction [England and Wales] that directly infringes the order.” He maintained that the accessibility of the information online was not the same as it being readily available.
“In this case the order is needed to prevent a media storm which would be devastating for the claimant and the children.”“In this case the order is needed to prevent a media storm which would be devastating for the claimant and the children.”
Guy Vassall-Adams QC, representing the Guardian and other media organisations, had argued in his written submission that the anonymised issues in the case should be reportable in the interest of open justice.Guy Vassall-Adams QC, representing the Guardian and other media organisations, had argued in his written submission that the anonymised issues in the case should be reportable in the interest of open justice.