Friday, May 27, 2011

ANL and the Daily Mail


Here is the Daily Mail "Contempt of Court" ruling following the publication of the infamous "Here are some clues" to Goodwin's lover. It has been left open.


http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/1341.html


"The reason that I decline to make the reference is that in my judgment it would not assist the Attorney-General. The lady is free to refer the matter to the Attorney-General herself, and the Attorney-General is free to act of his own motion. This case has received extensive coverage in very many newspapers and other news media, and has been the subject of public judgments."

3 comments:

  1. Paragraph 8 is interesting. "Mr Caplan [ANL's own QC] stated that certain further information in the fifth paragraph about the lady's job is false. Mr Caplan stated that information was known by ANL to be false. He said it was a deliberate falsehood."

    So their own barrister stood up in court and admitted to lying in the article, and that they had in fact fabricated the claim about her having been promoted. Soo all the people on this blog who were intimating as such have been proved wrong. This is why we shouldn't speculate. (It's also why you probably shouldn't believe anything you read in the Daily Mail without backup.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. ^^ No, they deliberately got bits wrong so that they could not be found in contempt of court. They are not stupid. This way, the woman can be identified and the paper can get away with contempt of court. Everyone knows who she is now, a simple search on google will reveal who she is without "speculating". Hopefully with the ball in the Attorney General's court (who is a Politician), no measures will be taken against twitter breachers, journo's and celebs who breached the injunctions will not get prosecuted as it would not be politically popular. I think the court has done well passing the buck as no-one will be punished. Bit like the unpopular Poll Tax laws......the clock is ticking Schillings!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. The problem is that one of the things they "deliberately got wrong" was one of the reasons for the outrage - they claimed that she had been promoted under Sir Shred, and then implied that this had been done improperly, when in fact the Mail's lawyers have now had to admit in court that it had not been done at all! We have a well-established doctrine of legal fiction - if you are doing something which would otherwise be unlawful but take measures to frustrate proceedings, you will be found wanting. The banks found this out the hard way when they took penalties and dressed them up "service charges".

    ReplyDelete