(Not-super) injunction, and names

digitalscream

Right, I've disappeared the threads about this super-injunction, specifically the ones revealing the identity in question. If you want to know why, read this:

The Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 gives absolute privilege to Hansard and any document ordered to be printed by either House of Parliament. It gives qualified privilege to extracts or abstracts from Hansard or other parliamentary papers. Such extracts or abstracts will be protected if they are published bona fide and without malice. The Master of the Rolls' committee concluded—

"Qualified privilege arises where such a summary is published in good faith and without malice. There is no judicial decision as to whether a summary of material published in Hansard which intentionally had the effect of frustrating a court order would be in good faith and without malice.

Where media reporting of Parliamentary proceedings does not simply reprint copies of Hansard or amount to summaries of Hansard or parliamentary proceedings they may well not attract qualified privilege.

Where media reporting of Parliamentary proceedings does not attract qualified privilege, it is unclear whether it would be protected at common law from contempt proceedings if it breached a court order. There is such protection in defamation proceedings for honest, fair and accurate reporting of Parliamentary proceedings. There is no reported case which decides whether the common law protection from contempt applies. There is an argument that the common law should adopt the same position in respect of reports of Parliamentary proceedings as it does in respect of reports of court proceedings."

(https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201012/jtselect/jtprivinj/273/27309.htm)

That's the closest thing I've found to a legal paper on this, and it's confirmed by private advice I've had.

So...the revelation of the identity using parliamentary privilege doesn't appear to nullify the court order, unless the reporting is "in good faith and without malice". There were quite a few comments here naming him which I can't see as satisfying either of those requirements, much less both.

Put simply...yes, I know that much bigger sites have published it. They, however, have legal funds which far outstrip ours (by which I mean that they have legal funds), and I can see this one being tested in court. If they decide to go after anyone, it won't be the folk who posted on those sites - it'll be the sites themselves. That constitutes unacceptable risk as far as I'm concerned.

With that in mind, consider this a warning. Anybody who decides to name the person in question will be summarily banned, whether they protest to having not seen this thread or not.

Heartfeltdawn

We're still OK to talk about effects, overpriced Gibsons, and boobs then? 

digitalscream

Heartfeltdawn said:

We're still OK to talk about effects, overpriced Gibsons, and boobs then? 

Totally

You can even talk about the injunction itself (its existence isn't subject to its own restrictions, as far as I'm aware). You just can't breach it.

ICBM

It's on the BBC now.

Fuengi

Do my Wow and Wisdom frets from the thread still count? 

digitalscream

ICBM said:

It's on the BBC now.

As I said, that's not really relevant to us.

Fuengi

Anyone remember this scene from The Insider?

Freebird

Heartfeltdawn said:

We're still OK to talk about effects, overpriced Gibsons, and boobs then? 

Probably best to avoid the Ibanez knockoffs though.

Teyeplayer

I have never been more confused; I do hope this is down to Ross stealing some beer or something equally ridiculous.

Fretwired

The man in question is strongly denying it and getting his lawyers on the case .. I wonder if Peter Hain  is wrong. The law firm at the centre of this case is more associated with another businessman rather than the accused.

In relation to the above you are OK once it's in the public domain. If the BBC's lawyers have OK'd it we're OK - just say "according to the BBC...". We are small fish and a court would through action against this forum out. Every major newspaper is covering it.

JerkMoans

Fairy nuff.  No names.  Gottit.

If I can put my nerd hat on for a moment, and if anyone gives a shit, the order that the media is having a frenzy over at the moment is not that rare beast known as a super-injunction, but rather a bog-standard privacy injunction, (somewhat laughably as matters have transpired) intended to protect the publication of the name(s) of a certain person or persons.  The fact that the injunction order has been made can still be published, and it was this that the Telegraph was making a lot of noise about yesterday.

Super-injunctions are a beefed up version , where publication is prohibited both of the information in question, but also of the fact that the injunction was made at all.  They're extremely uncommon, although by their very nature it is hard to be certain quite how uncommon...

All good clean fun, and all with the laudable aim of keeping food on the table of hard, working, honest wigheads.   

digitalscream

Fretwired said:

The man in question is strongly denying it and getting his lawyers on the case .. I wonder if Peter Hain  is wrong. The law firm at the centre of this case is more associated with another businessman rather than the accused.

In relation to the above you are OK once it's in the public domain. If the BBC's lawyers have OK'd it we're OK - just say "accoutring to the BBC...". We are small fish and a court would through action against this forum out. Every major newspaper is covering it.

Yes, because the BBC has never been successfully sued for reporting illegally. And, of course, no newspaper has ever been sued for the same, either.

It's not really a discussion, and from the "nobody will notice us" argument...you could argue the same about our rules on counterfeits, and it would make precisely the same difference to our approach (ie none). We operate according to the best and most cautious interpretation of the law in order that Tony and I don't get sued into oblivion for things you guys have said.

axisus

Two wrongs here. It's wrong that rich people can just pay for super injunctions, and it's wrong for MPs to invoke privilege and break them. It's not legally wrong but it is ethically wrong

Gassage

Fuengi said:

Do my Wow and Wisdom frets from the thread still count? 

I got 5 LOL's for my Hughie Green joke

Blaendulais

Gassage said:

Fuengi said:

Do my Wow and Wisdom frets from the thread still count? 

I got 5 LOL's for my Hughie Green joke

Wheres the evidence......

HAL9000

Surely anybody suing you for breaking the terms of a super injunction would then be admitting that such an injunction exists (which, of course, is prohibited).

Sporky

HAL9000 said:

Surely anybody suing you for breaking the terms of a super injunction would then be admitting that such an injunction exists (which, of course, is prohibited).

I'm not sure the smug satisfaction would make up for the bankruptcy. 

webrthomson

axisus said:

Two wrongs here. It's wrong that rich people can just pay for super injunctions, and it's wrong for MPs to invoke privilege and break them. It's not legally wrong but it is ethically wrong

Correct on both counts - given that the high court judge that considered this is the 2nd most senior in England it's been considered at a fairly high level - to ride roughshod over the legal process before it's finished seems a bad idea to say the least.

fandango

axisus said:

Two wrongs here. It's wrong that rich people can just pay for super injunctions, and it's wrong for MPs to invoke privilege and break them. It's not legally wrong but it is ethically wrong

I suspect it's the notion of injunctions and super-injunctions that exercises ones grey cells, rather than how folk spend their own money.

But really, who cares who it is? If the person named in the mainstream media is correct, who really cares? C'mon guys n girls, let's just be happy for him that he's become famous for other things in his life. 

Emp_Fab

Wow...  I started the original thread and due to other circumstances never got back to checking on it until now - where I discover it's disappeared, AND the alleged subject has been named in Parliament and is all over the place.

I never got to read a single response !

Anyway, bloody ridiculous things as per my original thread.  Here we are - all of us know who it is - and none of us are allowed to say the name that is all over the TV news as we speak.  I'm not being critical of the forum admins here, they are obviously doing what's best for the forum, I'm just commenting on the ludicrosity of the situation !

Everyone knows that it's..... Aaarrrrgggghhhh....!!!!

digitalscream

@Emp_Fab - yep. And I do appreciate the fact that you started the thread by telling people not to be idiots and name the guy.

Didn't work, of course.