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.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/04/freddie-starr-itv-injunction
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Freddie Starr: media wins court battle to overturn injunction | Freddie Starr: media wins court battle to overturn injunction |
| (30 days later) | |
| Five media organisations have overturned a high court injunction brought by the TV entertainer Freddie Starr over an allegedly libellous allegation. | Five media organisations have overturned a high court injunction brought by the TV entertainer Freddie Starr over an allegedly libellous allegation. |
| Starr had obtained an emergency injunction from the high court on Wednesday evening that banned ITV News, the BBC and several national newspapers, including the Guardian, from reporting the allegation. | Starr had obtained an emergency injunction from the high court on Wednesday evening that banned ITV News, the BBC and several national newspapers, including the Guardian, from reporting the allegation. |
| Mr Justice Tugendhat threw out the injunction at a hearing at the high court on Thursday afternoon. In his judgment, Tugendhat said the injunction should never had been heard because it was a claim for libel and there was no evidence that any publisher planned to report the allegation. | Mr Justice Tugendhat threw out the injunction at a hearing at the high court on Thursday afternoon. In his judgment, Tugendhat said the injunction should never had been heard because it was a claim for libel and there was no evidence that any publisher planned to report the allegation. |
| The judge added: "The upshot is that there is not any evidence of intent by any of the defendants to commit an unlawful act. The defendants would in any event only publish an allegation that they consider they would be able to defend. Therefore the court cannot grant an injunction." | The judge added: "The upshot is that there is not any evidence of intent by any of the defendants to commit an unlawful act. The defendants would in any event only publish an allegation that they consider they would be able to defend. Therefore the court cannot grant an injunction." |
| Tugendhat cautioned that his judgment should not undermine any potential legal "remedy" Starr may later seek concerning the allegation. | Tugendhat cautioned that his judgment should not undermine any potential legal "remedy" Starr may later seek concerning the allegation. |
| The Guardian remains unable to report the allegation for legal reasons, notwithstanding the fact that it is denied by Starr. The allegation has not been described in open court. | The Guardian remains unable to report the allegation for legal reasons, notwithstanding the fact that it is denied by Starr. The allegation has not been described in open court. |
| Starr was granted a temporary injunction shortly before 9pm on Wednesday after his solicitor was contacted by an ITV News journalist. | Starr was granted a temporary injunction shortly before 9pm on Wednesday after his solicitor was contacted by an ITV News journalist. |
| The injunction, granted by Mrs Justice Cox, applied to 11 broadcasters or newspapers and was lifted by Tugendhat after a two-hour hearing on Thursday. | The injunction, granted by Mrs Justice Cox, applied to 11 broadcasters or newspapers and was lifted by Tugendhat after a two-hour hearing on Thursday. |
| Christina Michalos, the lawyer for ITN and several newspaper groups, told the court that the injunction would undermine principles of free speech. | Christina Michalos, the lawyer for ITN and several newspaper groups, told the court that the injunction would undermine principles of free speech. |
| She added: "There is a fundamental public interest in those who wish to publish allegations of potential libel to not be restrained in this sort of way. It is an absolutely clear case in which the claimant, Freddie Starr, should not be permitted to fetter free speech." | She added: "There is a fundamental public interest in those who wish to publish allegations of potential libel to not be restrained in this sort of way. It is an absolutely clear case in which the claimant, Freddie Starr, should not be permitted to fetter free speech." |
| Michalos also appeared on behalf of the Times, the Independent and Northern & Shell; Jacob Dean acted for the Sun's publisher, News Group Newspapers; and Dean Dunham appeared on behalf of Starr. | Michalos also appeared on behalf of the Times, the Independent and Northern & Shell; Jacob Dean acted for the Sun's publisher, News Group Newspapers; and Dean Dunham appeared on behalf of Starr. |
| Starr was ordered to pay indemnity costs to the newspapers and broadcasters, believed to be up £10,000. | Starr was ordered to pay indemnity costs to the newspapers and broadcasters, believed to be up £10,000. |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. | |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. Enter your email address to subscribe. |