Sep 282010
 September 28, 2010  Posted by  Court, Non-U.S.

Martin Beckford reports:

A high-profile public figure has been granted a “super-injunction” to prevent publication of claims by a woman who was trying to blackmail him over his sex life.

The man obtained a High Court ruling stating that his name and details of his alleged relationship with the woman should not be published, nor even the existence of the gagging order.

A judge has now agreed that the fact of the injunction can be reported, as the risk of it being leaked onto the internet can never be eliminated, but ruled that the identities of those involved must remain secret.

Read more in the Telegraph.

These “super-injunctions” have raised a number of criticisms in the UK. Some argue that they create a privacy law by the backdoor, while press complain about restrictions on reporting. I think my biggest concern is that it creates privacy protections for those who have the wealth to retain legal representation but not for those who in similar situations who cannot afford lawyers. If it’s not okay to report that Lord John High-on-His-Horse had an affair and his mistress has some lousy things to say about him, it shouldn’t be okay to report that John Working-Stiff had an affair and his mistress has some lousy things to say about him.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.