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 2 Version 3
Celebrity injunction: PJS cannot be named, says Supreme Court Celebrity injunction: PJS cannot be named, says Supreme Court
(about 1 hour 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 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 has young children with YMA - as his spouse is known in court documents - and both are described as "well-known individuals in the entertainment business".He has young children with YMA - as his spouse is known in court documents - and both are described as "well-known individuals in the entertainment business".
'Infringe privacy rights' What is the future for privacy injunctions?
Why didn't the order apply in Scotland?
Legal proceedings had started earlier this year when the Sunday tabloid wanted to publish a story about the celebrity, alleging he had taken part in what the courts described as a "three-way sexual encounter".Legal proceedings had started earlier this year when the Sunday tabloid wanted to publish a story about the celebrity, alleging he had taken 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.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.
He 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 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.
The Supreme Court has now restored the injunction by a majority of four to one. It will stand until trial or a further order.The Supreme Court has now restored the injunction by a majority of four to one. It will stand until trial or a further order.
AnalysisAnalysis
By David Sillito, BBC media correspondentBy David Sillito, BBC media correspondent
It's a balancing act - the right to privacy versus freedom of expression.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 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 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.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".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.He adds that the children are young and could be shielded from the immediate publicity.
In the judgement, four of the five justices decided there was an "absence on present evidence" of any "genuine public interest" to justify publishing the man's identity.In the judgement, four of the five justices decided there was an "absence on present evidence" of any "genuine public interest" to justify publishing the man's identity.
They said the injunction, pending the outcome of any trial that could take place on the issue, was appropriate as it would protect PJS and his family against "further invasion of privacy".They said the injunction, pending the outcome of any trial that could take place on the issue, was appropriate as it would protect PJS and his family against "further invasion of privacy".
Lord Mance said the Court of Appeal went wrong in the 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.Lord Mance said the Court of Appeal went wrong in the 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: "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." He said there was "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".
He noted that the case "will probably give rise to further, entirely legitimate debate on the value of such injunctions in the internet age". He noted the case "will probably give rise to further, entirely legitimate debate on the value of such injunctions in the internet age".
Lord Mance added that the Supreme Court had come to the conclusion it was "likely" that a permanent injunction would be granted "on a trial in the light of the present evidence", meaning it was appropriate to have an interim injunction in place. Lord Mance added the Supreme Court had come to the conclusion it was "likely" that a permanent injunction would be granted "on a trial in the light of the present evidence", meaning it was appropriate to have an interim injunction in place.
'Important moment''Important moment'
Legal specialist Robin Shaw, who specialises in media-related litigation at law and professional services firm Gordon Dadds, said Thursday's decision would have implications on other cases. Legal specialist Robin Shaw, who specialises in media-related litigation, said Thursday's decision could lead to a "rapid increase" in applications for injunctions.
"Five years ago, the Ryan Giggs case was thought to mean the end of the celebrity injunction; his attempt to suppress his sexual adventures backfired and had the effect only of magnifying and prolonging the attention given to his activities," he said. He said the case of footballer Ryan Giggs - who was named on Twitter and then identified in Parliament as having an injunction in place over an alleged affair - was thought to have meant the end of celebrity injunctions because coverage on social media and abroad "showed the difficulty, if not impossibility, of keeping anything secret in the digital age".
"A combination of coverage on social media and abroad showed the difficulty, if not impossibility, of keeping anything secret in the digital age. "In consequence, applications to the court for privacy injunctions have virtually disappeared, but PJS's success in obtaining an injunction and maintaining it - despite the enormous attention given to it on social media and abroad - will still protect the celebrity from widespread adverse coverage in the mainstream media such as newspaper, television and radio," he said.
"In consequence, applications to the court for privacy injunctions have virtually disappeared, but PJS's success in obtaining an injunction and maintaining it, despite the enormous attention given to it on social media and abroad, will still protect the celebrity from widespread adverse coverage in the mainstream media such as newspaper, television and radio, all of which would now risk an action for contempt of court by publishing the injuncted information." Former Lib Dem MP John Hemming, who used parliamentary privilege to name Giggs five years ago, said he was surprised by the ruling.
Mr Shaw predicted there could now be a "rapid increase in applications for privacy injunctions" by celebrities - as well as an "outcry from the press" about "what they will call the farcical supposed suppression of information" that can be published around the world. "The logical conclusion of this is that gossip about anyone with children will become a criminal offence subject to a potential penalty of two years' imprisonment," he said.
Lawyer Dominic Crossley, who specialises in media and privacy issues and is a partner at law firm Payne Hicks Beach, said: "This is an important moment for the law of privacy in the UK. Lawyer Dominic Crossley, who specialises in media and privacy issues, said: "This is an important moment for the law of privacy in the UK.
"Privacy is a right that we all value, every day, but it is meaningless unless we are able to enforce that right in court.""Privacy is a right that we all value, every day, but it is meaningless unless we are able to enforce that right in court."