This article is from the source 'bbc' 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.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36329818
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Celebrity injunction: PJS cannot be named, says Supreme Court | Celebrity injunction: PJS cannot be named, says Supreme Court |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| An injunction banning the naming of a celebrity involved in an alleged extra-marital relationship should stay in place, the Supreme Court has ruled. | An injunction banning the naming of a celebrity involved in an alleged extra-marital relationship should stay in place, the Supreme Court has ruled. |
| The celebrity, known in court as PJS, successfully appealed against a court ruling lifting the ban on media in England and Wales publishing his name. | The celebrity, known in court as PJS, successfully appealed against a court ruling lifting the ban on media in England and Wales publishing his name. |
| The Sun on Sunday argued it should be able to run the story as his name had already been published elsewhere. | |
| The man had taken legal action saying that he had a right to privacy. | The man had taken legal action saying that he had a right to privacy. |
| He had asked the Supreme Court to consider the issue after losing his case in the Court of Appeal last month, when three appeal court judges ruled the injunction should not remain in place. | He had asked the Supreme Court to consider the issue after losing his case in the Court of Appeal last month, when three appeal court judges ruled the injunction should not remain in place. |
| He has young children and his partner is also well-known. | |
| 'Infringe privacy rights' | 'Infringe privacy rights' |
| The Supreme Court restored the injunction by a majority of four to one. | |
| In the judgement, Lord Mance said the Court of Appeal "went wrong" in balancing the rights of freedom of expression against the rights of privacy when it agreed with an application to discharge the injunction brought by News Group Newspapers, publishers of the Sun on Sunday. | |
| He said publication of the story would "infringe the privacy rights of the claimant - referred to as PJS - his partner, and their children". | He said publication of the story would "infringe the privacy rights of the claimant - referred to as PJS - his partner, and their children". |
| Lord Mance added: "Second, there is no public interest (however much it may be of interest to some members of the public) in publishing kiss and tell stories or criticisms of private sexual conduct, simply because the persons involved are well known; and so there is no right to invade privacy by publishing them." | Lord Mance added: "Second, there is no public interest (however much it may be of interest to some members of the public) in publishing kiss and tell stories or criticisms of private sexual conduct, simply because the persons involved are well known; and so there is no right to invade privacy by publishing them." |
| The interim injunction will now stand until trial or a further order. | The interim injunction will now stand until trial or a further order. |
| Analysis | |
| By David Sillito, BBC media correspondent | |
| It's a balancing act - the right to privacy versus freedom of expression. | |
| The Sun on Sunday says the story is effectively out because it's been published in America, Canada and Scotland. | |
| The Supreme Court disagrees saying that there would be additional "intensive coverage" if the injunction was lifted. | |
| The four to one decision says just because the couple are well known, there is no "right to invade privacy". They are also concerned to protect the interests of the couple's children. | |
| However, one of the four judges, Lord Toulson, disagrees with the judgment saying that while the publication of the story would involved "acute unpleasantness", the story is not going to go away "injunction or no injunction". | |
| He adds that the children are young and could be shielded from the immediate publicity. | |
| Legal proceedings started earlier this year when the Sunday tabloid wanted to publish a story about the celebrity who, it is alleged, took part in what the courts described as a "three-way sexual encounter". | |
| The man sued News Group Newspapers claiming that publication of information about the alleged extra-marital activity would be a misuse of private information and a breach of confidence. | |
| Any trial examining those claims is likely to be seen by a High Court judge, who could decide to lift the injunction after looking at evidence from both sides. |