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/21/lifting-of-celebrity-threesome-injunction-would-be-devastating
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Lifting of 'celebrity threesome' injunction would be 'devastating' | Lifting of 'celebrity threesome' injunction would be 'devastating' |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| Naming the celebrity claimant in the privacy injunction case involving a three-way sexual encounter would be “devastating” for the family’s children, the supreme court has been told. | Naming the celebrity claimant in the privacy injunction case involving a three-way sexual encounter would be “devastating” for the family’s children, the supreme court has been told. |
| Opening an emergency application to extend the temporary ban on media publication at the UK’s highest court, Desmond Browne QC said that lifting the injunction would release a flood of reporting. | |
| The supreme court has agreed to hear the claim because of the public importance of the issue of whether court-backed injunctions can ever be enforced in the era of the internet. | The supreme court has agreed to hear the claim because of the public importance of the issue of whether court-backed injunctions can ever be enforced in the era of the internet. |
| Details of the case have been published in American, Scottish and other mainstream media outside the jurisdiction of England and Wales. | Details of the case have been published in American, Scottish and other mainstream media outside the jurisdiction of England and Wales. |
| The legal dispute was prompted in January, when the Sun on Sunday received a tip-off that the celebrity had been involved in a “three-way” sexual encounter with two others known as AB and CD. | The legal dispute was prompted in January, when the Sun on Sunday received a tip-off that the celebrity had been involved in a “three-way” sexual 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. | 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 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”. | When the 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”. The newspaper said it thought “draconian privacy injunctions” had had their day. | |
| On Monday, News Group Newspapers, publisher 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. | “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. | “Knowledge of the relevant matters is now so widespread that confidentiality has probably been lost,” he added. |
| But lawyers for PJS appealed against that judgment and their case was fast-tracked to the supreme court. The five justices hearing the case are the president of the supreme court, Lord Neuberger, the deputy president, Lady Hale, as well as Lord Mance, Lord Reed and Lord Toulson. | But lawyers for PJS appealed against that judgment and their case was fast-tracked to the supreme court. The five justices hearing the case are the president of the supreme court, Lord Neuberger, the deputy president, Lady Hale, as well as Lord Mance, Lord Reed and Lord Toulson. |
| Neuberger opened the hearing on Thursday morning by reading out a warning that the identity of PJS and other parties involved should not be revealed. The justices may give their decision on whether or not to lift the injunction at lunchtime; alternatively they could reserve judgment to a later date. | Neuberger opened the hearing on Thursday morning by reading out a warning that the identity of PJS and other parties involved should not be revealed. The justices may give their decision on whether or not to lift the injunction at lunchtime; alternatively they could reserve judgment to a later date. |
| The case is formally a “rolled-up hearing”, meaning that the court is hearing both an application for permission to appeal and the substance of the dispute at the same time. | The case is formally a “rolled-up hearing”, meaning that the court is hearing both an application for permission to appeal and the substance of the dispute at the same time. |
| Browne said the court of appeal had failed to consider adequately the interests of the children. “It’s hard to see that the children were afforded the primacy of importance to which they are entitled,” he said, adding that publication would be devastating for PJS and the children. | |
| Browne added: “This case has been hailed by some as the death-knell of the privacy injunction. We hope that reports of its death have been greatly exaggerated.” | Browne added: “This case has been hailed by some as the death-knell of the privacy injunction. We hope that reports of its death have been greatly exaggerated.” |
| Browneaid there had been an energetic campaign conducted by the publishers of the Sun on Sunday and the Daily Mail to “ridicule” the granting of the injunction. | |
| Readers had been encouraged to find the prohibited material online and add to public pressure to demands to lift the injunction. | |
| Any compensation liable to be paid by any newspaper, which lost a damages claim, after publication of such details are not so high that they are an effective deterrence, he added: “Otherwise, we are allowing newspapers with large circulations to buy a licence to publish.” | |
| Concluding his submissions, Browne told the supreme court: “The court needs to consider whether we are living in a country under the rule of the law or under the rule of the press.” | |
| Gavin Millar QC, for News Groups Newspapers, the publishers of the Sun on Sunday, disputed that his clients had solely been responsible for provoking debate about the privacy case. The story “took off on the internet”, he suggested, because it was an interesting and important public issue. | |
| The spread of information across the internet, “is not something the court can prevent,” Millar added. “Once a story has appeared on the internet, it becomes a subject of discussion for people within the jurisdiction.” |