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/media/2016/apr/19/celebrity-injunction-extended-for-two-more-days-by-supreme-court
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Celebrity injunction extended for two more days by supreme court | Celebrity injunction extended for two more days by supreme court |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| The injunction banning the media naming the celebrity involved in an extra-marital affair has been extended for another two days by the supreme court. | The injunction banning the media naming the celebrity involved in an extra-marital affair has been extended for another two days by the supreme court. |
| The highest court in the UK has decided the case is important enough to have an oral hearing this Thursday. | |
| “The supreme court will hear argument as to whether permission to appeal should be granted, and, if it is granted, as to whether the appeal should be allowed or dismissed,” it said. | “The supreme court will hear argument as to whether permission to appeal should be granted, and, if it is granted, as to whether the appeal should be allowed or dismissed,” it said. |
| “The interim injunction granted by the court of appeal will remain in place until the conclusion of the supreme court hearing, and at the end of the hearing the supreme court will decide whether to continue that injunction,” it added. | “The interim injunction granted by the court of appeal will remain in place until the conclusion of the supreme court hearing, and at the end of the hearing the supreme court will decide whether to continue that injunction,” it added. |
| The legal dispute was prompted in January, when the Sun on Sunday got a tip-off that the celebrity had been involved in a “three-way” encounter with two others known as AB and CD. | |
| The celebrity, known as PJS, immediately sought, and won, an injunction, arguing that publication was a breach of privacy and not in the public interest. | |
| When the court of appeal judgment was revealed in March, the Sun attacked the gagging order saying the “high-profile celebrity has courted publicity for years, regularly including his kids”. It said judges were not there to act as “moral arbiters over tabloid stories of which they sniffily disapprove”. It said it thought the “draconian privacy injunctions” had had their day. | |
| On Monday, News Group Newspapers, publishers of the Sun and its sister Sunday title, won an application to have the injunction lifted because the story had been published overseas. | |
| “Much of the harm which the injunction was intended to prevent has already occurred,” said Lord Justice Jackson, who led the three-judge panel examining the issue at the court of appeal. | |
| “Knowledge of the relevant matters is now so widespread that confidentiality has probably been lost,” he added. | |
| The judges said they had considered the balance of the rights of the press against the right to privacy of the individuals involved but that the weight attached to the claimant’s rights to privacy had been reduced as a result of the leaks. | |
| Outlining the facts of the case on Monday, the court of appeal, noted that the claimant was in the entertainment business and is married to a “well known individual”, known as YMA. | |
| The court said the claimant met a third person, referred to as AB, in 2007 or 2008, and they had “occasional sexual encounters”. | |
| In a text message exchange in December 2011, PJS asked if AB’s partner CD would be “up for a three-way” which was “duly carried out”. | |
| In January, AB and CD approached the editor of the Sun on Sunday but after being informed by the paper of its intention to publish, the claimant went to court to stop the story entering the public domain arguing it was a breach of his right to privacy. | |
| The case has been seen as a test of whether the use of privacy injunctions, used in the past by celebrities including footballer Ryan Giggs, can ever be effective in the internet era. | |
| The supreme court’s remit is to concentrate on “cases of the greatest public and constitutional importance” and media lawyers say it will be a surprise if the judges take the case on because no new law is being established by this particular injunction. |