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/go/rss/int/news/-/news/uk-politics-13465286

The article has changed 12 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 7 Version 8
Media concession made in injunction report Media concession made in injunction report
(about 1 hour later)
A report by top judges has recommended the media should be informed in advance about applications for injunctions and so-called super-injunctions. The media should have the chance to contest applications for injunctions and "super-injunctions" before they are granted, a report by top judges says.
Lord Neuberger, Master of the Rolls, said reports of parliamentary comments which tried to contravene injunctions might be in contempt of court.
The report said super-injunctions were now being granted for "short periods" and only where "secrecy is necessary".The report said super-injunctions were now being granted for "short periods" and only where "secrecy is necessary".
Downing Street has said the government would consider the report carefully. Committee chairman Lord Neuberger also said reports of parliamentary comments which tried to contravene injunctions might be in contempt of court.
Downing Street said the "useful report" would be considered "very carefully".
Lord Neuberger, who is the most senior civil judge in England and Wales, has chaired a year-long inquiry by a committee of judges and lawyers.Lord Neuberger, who is the most senior civil judge in England and Wales, has chaired a year-long inquiry by a committee of judges and lawyers.
The report, which says only two super-injunctions had been granted since January 2010, states "the procedure will enable the media to be informed about applications in advance as parliament envisaged". He said there was "no doubt" that "super-injunctions in the technical sense have been granted far too often", but added that only two super-injunctions had been granted since January 2010.
The report states "the procedure will enable the media to be informed about applications in advance as parliament envisaged".
It says: "We have tried to achieve a procedural system which strikes a fair and proper balance between the principles of open justice and freedom of expression for the public and media and an individual's right to confidentiality and privacy."It says: "We have tried to achieve a procedural system which strikes a fair and proper balance between the principles of open justice and freedom of expression for the public and media and an individual's right to confidentiality and privacy."
Lord Neuberger's committee also said that super-injunctions were only granted for very short periods where secrecy is essential to ensure that the whole point of the order is not destroyed. The report reaffirms the critical importance of open justice.
It recommends guidance on informing the media about injunction hearings.
That will stress the importance of press freedom and the report makes clear it will be a very rare case where advance notice of a hearing is not given to a media organisation likely to be affected by an order.
The Master of the Rolls acknowledged that too many anonymous injunctions had been granted prior to the John Terry case in January 2010.
However, since then, only two super-injunctions had been granted and the media have been present at many other injunction hearings, which they have neither opposed or appealed.
And there was something of a warning from the Lord Chief Justice to members of parliament.
He asked, rhetorically, whether it was a very good idea for our lawmakers to flout court orders made by judges just because they disagreed with them or with the law on privacy.
Lord Neuberger's committee said that super-injunctions were now only granted for very short periods where secrecy is essential to ensure that the whole point of the order is not destroyed.
The committee said that whenever any "anonymised" order is made the court should provide a reasoned judgement for its decision.The committee said that whenever any "anonymised" order is made the court should provide a reasoned judgement for its decision.
The Lord Chief Justice was also critical of MPs who used parliamentary privilege to "flout" court orders.The Lord Chief Justice was also critical of MPs who used parliamentary privilege to "flout" court orders.
The committee recommended that, where possible, journalists should be allowed into courts where applications for privacy injunctions are being made, even though they might not be able to report on them.The committee recommended that, where possible, journalists should be allowed into courts where applications for privacy injunctions are being made, even though they might not be able to report on them.
Gagging order concerns And Lord Neuberger said the internet "does add to difficulties of enforcement at the moment".
He said the internet had "by no means the same degree of intrusion into privacy as the story being emblazoned on the front pages of newspapers", which "people trust more".
But he warned that modern technology is "totally out of control" and society should consider other ways to bring Twitter and other websites under control.
The report comes at a time of unprecedented public interest and debate about the use of injunctions.The report comes at a time of unprecedented public interest and debate about the use of injunctions.
It addresses concerns over gagging orders such as injunctions and super-injunctions - court orders that prevent the media from revealing even the fact that an injunction has been granted.It addresses concerns over gagging orders such as injunctions and super-injunctions - court orders that prevent the media from revealing even the fact that an injunction has been granted.
On Thursday, Lib Dem peer Lord Stoneham used parliamentary privilege to tell the Lords that ex-Royal Bank of Scotland head Sir Fred Goodwin had obtained an injunction to prevent reporting of a relationship he is alleged to have had with a senior colleague.
Lord Stoneham's intervention caused the anonymity element of his injunction to be lifted at the High Court.
Sir Fred was widely criticised for his role in the near-collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS).
In March, Lib Dem MP John Hemming was the first to make Sir Fred's injunction public by using parliamentary privilege to raise the matter in the Commons.
Mr Hemming said the public had a right to know if any of Sir Fred's actions affected the bank's performance before it had to be rescued by the government.
He told the BBC: "If you take the RBS code of conduct for example, if someone is a regular golf partner with someone else who also works for the bank then that is considered to be something that is relevant and should be declared because it creates a conflict of interest.
"And it is the culture of such organisations that is important in considering why things happen with a view to trying to stop them in the future."
Lord Neuberger's report addresses some concerns over secrecy although reporting restrictions would still protect people's anonymity.Lord Neuberger's report addresses some concerns over secrecy although reporting restrictions would still protect people's anonymity.
But it would allow the press to know what it was they were not allowed to report.But it would allow the press to know what it was they were not allowed to report.
'Careful consideration''Careful consideration'
However, it is not yet clear whether the media would be able to challenge an injunction.
BBC legal correspondent Clive Coleman says the report could not come at a more heated time, with injunctions flouted on Twitter and a campaign against a separate privacy law being conducted by judges.BBC legal correspondent Clive Coleman says the report could not come at a more heated time, with injunctions flouted on Twitter and a campaign against a separate privacy law being conducted by judges.
The issue of privacy injunctions just will not go away, our correspondent says.The issue of privacy injunctions just will not go away, our correspondent says.
Last month, Prime Minister David Cameron said Parliament not judges should decide on the balance between press freedom and privacy. Prime Minister David Cameron's official spokesman said Lord Neuberger's report was "a very useful report and we will consider it very carefully".
The prime minister's official spokesman said: "This whole issue is something we need to think about. "We think it is important to find the right balance between the rights of privacy and the right to freedom of expression," he said.
"We are going to look at this report and consider it very carefully. We have always said we would start by considering that report carefully." Asked about Lord Judge's comments about law makers flouting court orders, the spokesman said the report did not appear to make any recommendation to change the law on parliamentary privilege.
Last month, Mr Cameron said Parliament, not judges, should decide on the balance between press freedom and privacy.
On Thursday, Lib Dem peer Lord Stoneham used parliamentary privilege to tell the Lords that ex-Royal Bank of Scotland head Sir Fred Goodwin had obtained an injunction to prevent reporting of a relationship he is alleged to have had with a senior colleague.
Lord Stoneham's intervention caused the anonymity element of his injunction to be lifted at the High Court.
Sir Fred was widely criticised for his role in the near-collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS).