Friday, May 20, 2011

Master of the Rolls Lord David Neuberger reports


An interesting report.

Only 2 super injunctions since Jan 2010 have been issued and one lapsed after 7 days as reported by bloomberg. We had better change the name of this blog then.

However, there has been an increase in courts granting "anonymity orders" restraining the media from identifying people involved in a lawsuit over a news story.

Injunctions should be less frequent and with short time spans (are you reading this Jemima Khan?)

Process has been mapped out better and the Media can lobby and attend private sessions.

Members of Parliament have been warned about their conduct and been told to keep quiet.

"However where secrecy is ordered it should only be to the extent strictly necessary to achieve the interests of justice. And where it is ordered, the facts of the case and the reason for the secrecy should be explained, as far as possible, in an openly available judgment." And what does that mean exactly?

Conclusion
Not much really is going to change. Privacy and censorship is a real issue in the UK and needs to be resolved by Parliament, not self serving Judges who make money from interpretting badly written laws like the Human Rights Act 1998.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/may/20/superinjunctions-granted-too-readily-judges-say

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/2011/05/20/injunction-reports-may-be-contempt-115875-23143742/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8525451/Judges-warn-MPs-over-breaching-super-injunctions.html

2 comments:

  1. Super-injunction, you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. Neuberger MR is referring to an injunction that carries a restriction on reporting that the order even exists - the logic behind these is that sometimes knowing that an injunction exists is an information leak (the same reason why banks don't use branded envelopes for important stuff). The idea is to prevent a tip-toe tip-off (i.e. skirting the issue closely enough to drop hints).

    The things we're hearing about in the press are anonymity orders - that is, you can reveal the existence of the injunction, but the names of the parties have been removed. They will remove both parties if they think that even knowing the defendant's identity would make it easy to guess who the claimant is.

    "And what does that mean exactly?"
    It means more judgments like CTB, which explains in some considerable detail the reasons for the judge imposing the order, and the evidence to support it - which, in that case, mostly boiled down to attempted blackmail via the press.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That man looks like John Cleese.

    ReplyDelete