While the publication of Lord Neuberger’s report gave us an insight into current judicial thinking on the use of injunctions and ‘superinjunctions’ – and prompted this (lawful) tweet…. from @DavidJonesMP : “Unimpressed by sight of Ld Chief Justice & Master of Rolls sitting under banner “Judiciary of England & Wales”. Bit like Match of the Day.” – and inspired Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, to say that the use of modern technology was out of control – and it is certainly, for the moment, out of his control as far as overseas jurisdictions are concerned… the show on twitter goes on….
The latest twist in the tale from lawyers representing the footballer we cannot name in England & Wales (but who appears now to be known urbi et orbi despite the best endeavours of judges ruling contra mundum etc ) is.. CTB -v- Twitter, Inc. and Persons Unknown (Case No. HQ11XO1814) – well covered by the Charles Russell CRITique blog. See also: Footballer CTB is suing Twitter
I am, because I read a lot of tweets, aware of another twist in the tale… this time from Scotland. But… I can’t tell you what it is about. (Although the BBC is happy that you should know about these events)
And you will find this post by @loveandgarbage of value in terms of protecting a position in Scotland? : Don’t say I didn’t tell you so – superinjunctions, anonymised injunctions and Scotland
Twitter and WikiLeaks have made a mockery of the courts
One of the best analyses I have seen was in The Observer this morning “A showdown between the law and common sense is brewing as a footballer takes legal action over Twitter’s injunction breach”
Most people know – or should by now – that in the absence of any ‘privacy law’, the judges have to balance the rights of privacy and freedom of speech in The European Convention, enshrined in our law by The Human Rights Act.
Some may well argue that the private sex lives of footballers and others is ‘private’. Others argue that these celebrities make a great deal of money through sponsorship, they are role models and if their hobbies or extra-curricular activities are inconsistent with the image they ‘sell’, the press should report on such matters. Others have argued that it should not just be left to the judges to balance these interests of privacy and freedom of speech. A debate in parliament, they say, is to be held soon – not before time. I have a feeling that whether you mock the ‘apparent right of tweeters to know everything’ or not, that injunctions may well not feature as a practical remedy in future. The cat is out of the bag – and The Spycatcher affair of many years ago is a lesson that would be well worth learning.
Meanwhile… contempt proceedings may be considered by the Attorney-General if this report in The Mail on Sunday is accurate – one assumes that it is. Robert Verkaik writes: “TV star is first to face jail over tweets after England footballer claims they breach injunction: Judge reports top journalist to Attorney-General.”
The other saga of the week… among many… must be The Ken Clarke Affair. I don’t propose to cover this again, but I would like to draw your attention to a very good, considered, piece by Suzanne Moore in The Guardian…
Like many women, I’ve been raped, but I still agree with Ken Clarke
Rape is not a party-political issue and I am disgusted that it has been treated that way this week
I’ll be back later with another ‘postcard’ if I have time later.
Best, as always
PS…. and I really enjoyed this…. Lord Neuberger – Superinjunctions and other orders from Obiter J