City Research Online

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

City Research Online City Research Online City, University of London Institutional Repository Citation: Townend, J. (2014). Defamation, privacy & the ‘chill:’ A socio-‐legal study of the relationship between media law and journalistic practice in England and Wales, 2008-‐13. (Unpublished Doctoral thesis, City, University of London) This is the accepted version of the paper. This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link: https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/15981/ Link to published version: Copyright: City Research Online aims to make research outputs of City, University of London available to a wider audience. Copyright and Moral Rights remain with the author(s) and/or copyright holders. URLs from City Research Online may be freely distributed and linked to. Reuse: Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. City Research Online: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/ publications@city.ac.uk Defamation, privacy & the ‘chill’ A socio-legal study of the relationship between media law and journalistic practice in England and Wales, 2008-13 Judith Townend A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Arts and Social Sciences City University London Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism Submitted for examination, October 2014 Submitted to library, March 2015 Defamation, privacy & the ‘chill’ Tables & illustrations Figure 1: Reasons for abandoning stories (general sample, n=74) 186 Figure 2: Reasons for abandoning stories (hyperlocal sample, n=69) 187 Figure 3: Reasons for changing stories (general sample, n=68) 188 Figure 4: Reasons for changing stories (hyperlocal sample, n=63) 188 Figure 5: Defamation claims issued in London 1992-2013 231 Figure 6: Number of privacy injunctions granted, August 2011-June 2014 257 Figure 7: Number of articles relating to super injunctions, 2009-2014 258 Table 1: Access to pre-publication advice (employer) 174 Table 2: Access to pre-publication advice (own publication) 174 Table 3: Media law insurance (employer) 175 Table 4: Media law insurance (own publication) 175 Table 5: Impact of libel (changing stories) 177 Table 6: Impact of libel (abandoning stories) 178 Table 7: Impact of privacy (changing stories) 178 Table 8: Impact of privacy (abandoning stories) 178 Table 9: Threats of libel 192 Table 10: Threats of libel, in the last year, compared to the year before 192 Table 11: Threats of libel, since began writing for publication 193 Table 12: Types of complainants (libel) 193 Table 13: Experiences of libel action 194 Table 14: Threats of privacy action 196 Table 15: Types of complainants (privacy) 196 Table 16: Number and value of defamation claims in London, 2002-13 230 Table 17: Table in Ministry of Justice Impact Assessment 232 Table 18: Sample siZe of defamation claims, 2009-12 235 Table 19: Types of media organisations defending claims, 2009-12 236 Table 20: Number of libel writs set down for trial, 1990-1994 237 Table 21: Breakdown of media writs set down for trial 237 Table 22: Number of injunction applications, August 2011-June 2014 258 3 Defamation, privacy & the ‘chill’ Contents Table of Contents Tables & illustrations 3 Contents 5 Acknowledgements 9 Declaration 11 Abstract 13 A note on the text 15 SECTION I 1. Introduction 17 1.1. Scope of research 17 1.2. A socio-legal approach 27 1.3. Methodology 32 1.4. Data access 41 1.5. Chapter summary 45 SECTION II 2. The ‘chilling effect’ on free expression 47 2.1. A popular metaphor 47 Schauer’s typology 50 Chilling effect studies 54 2.2. Defining rights to freedom of expression, reputation and privacy 58 Freedom of expression 58 Protection of reputation 65 The right to privacy 69 Public interest 72 2.3. Uses of the chilling effect 75 Jurisprudence 75 General use 82 2.4. Conclusions 85 3. The journalistic environment 89 3.1. Microcosms and ecosystems 89 The journalistic field 89 The news ecosystem 94 3.2. Conditions of the field 100 News values 101 Gatekeeper roles 105 3.3. External fields 107 5 Defamation, privacy & the ‘chill’ Public opinion 108 Media economy 111 Law 116 3.4. Conclusions 118 SECTION III 4. Legal gatekeepers: Their role and views 121 4.1. Professional structure 122 4.2. Work practices 126 Pre-publication activity 126 Post-publication activity 142 4.3. Policy opinions 148 Substantive and procedural law 149 Dispute resolution systems 150 Costs and damages 154 4.4. Chilling effects 158 4.5. Conclusions 165 5. Legal perceptions of online and hyperlocal journalists 167 5.1. Decentralised news work 167 Hyperlocal activity 168 5.2. Survey overview 169 Legal resources 173 Altering and abandoning stories 177 Extra-legal factors 185 5.3. Legal experiences 191 5.4. Policy views 198 Perceptions of the chill 198 Substantive and procedural law 209 5.5. Conclusions 221 6. How information flows in media-legal events 225 6.1. Locating the legal data 226 Defamation cases 229 Privacy cases 242 Costs 243 6.2. Case study: Privacy injunctions 246 Context 246 Tweeting lawyers 249 Media innuendo 250 The legal record 253 Calm after the storm 259 A clearer picture 260 6.3. Case study: Jimmy Savile and Lance Armstrong 261 National treasures 261 Libel threats 263 The media blind eye 268 The lone reporter 271 6 Defamation, privacy & the ‘chill’ 6.4. Conclusions 273 SECTION IV 7. Concluding discussion: The ‘chill’ on journalism in its social context 277 7.1. Media law in contemporary media systems 278 Understanding influences 278 Media-legal interactions in a digital environment 286 7.2. Reorienting the chill 297 8. Concluding recommendations: Policy gaps and options 305 8.1. Informing the policy process 308 Stakeholders 308 Monitoring the data 309 Informing legal reform 311 8.2. Improvements for dispute resolution 312 8.3. Future research 313 Appendix 1 319 Glossary of legal terms and abbreviations 319 Appendix 2 323 Sample interview questions 323 Appendix 3 325 Interviewee summary 325 Appendix 4 327 Survey respondent summary 327 Appendix 5 331 Freedom of Information request to BBC 331 Appendix 6 337 A note on costs protection reform 337 Bibliography 339 Cases 376 7 Defamation, privacy & the ‘chill’ Acknowledgements In autumn 2014, as I was putting the finishing touches to this thesis, I was in touch with a journalist who had received a threat of legal action, and was feeling unsure about his position. ‘It’s when things like this happen, it reminds you that the chilling effect is actually real. You can’t help but have it in your mind when stories connected to that person comes up,’ he remarked. It reminded me of why I started the research in the first place, to try and document experiences like these and make sense of the many different ways in which the chilling effect is (or isn’t) perceived. Without the goodwill and enthusiasm of journalists and bloggers who filled in lengthy surveys, media specialist lawyers who agreed to be interviewed, and friends and colleagues who shared their advice and ideas, it could not have been done. In particular I would like to thank the people and organisations I have worked and collaborated with over the past few years. These include: colleagues in the department of journalism and law at City University London; Professor Eric Barendt, UCL; Dr Andrew Scott, London School of Economics; Hugh Tomlinson QC, Matrix Chambers and the Inforrm media law blog; Gavin Rees, Dart Centre Europe; Professor Steven Barnett, University of Westminster; and Index on Censorship. Thank you to Dr Richard Danbury, Damian Radcliffe, Dr Daniel Bennett, Dr David Goldberg, Mike Dodd, Professor Robin Callender-Smith, Dr Lawrence McNamara, Glenda Cooper, Sam McIntosh, Dr David Pichonnaz for help and solidarity along the way. I am grateful to Dr Ana Villar at the Centre for Comparative Social Surveys for assisting me in the design of the surveys and Emily Allbon, City law librarian at the time of my research, for invaluable help with resources. I also want to pay tribute to the late Walter Greenwood and the late Tom Welsh, who kindly took an interest in the project and were generous with their time. Thank you to the Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism (CLJJ) at City University London for funding my PhD research, to fellow PhD colleagues and the past and present co- directors of the CLJJ for their comments and assistance, and in particular, the Centre’s research manager, Peter Aggar, for his help. Thank you to my second supervisor, Nick Hatzis, for his insights, and my first supervisor Professor Howard Tumber for his guidance, encouragement and enrichment of the PhD process. Thank you to my examiners, Professor Philip Schlesinger and Professor Thomas Gibbons, for their suggestions for minor amendments which have improved the final version and will inform future development of the research. Of course, any errors and omissions remain my own. A personal thank you to my family and friends for their encouragement, especially my parents, grandmother, sister and brother. And finally, Jonny, for his input and being brilliantly supportive from the very beginning to the very end of the project. 9 Defamation, privacy & the ‘chill’ Declaration I grant powers of discretion to the University Librarian to allow the thesis to be copied in whole or in part without further reference to the author. This permission covers only single copies made for study purposes, subject to normal conditions of acknowledgement. 11 Defamation, privacy & the ‘chill’ Abstract A popular metaphor used by judges and journalists, the ‘chilling effect’ is used to describe the undesirable deterrence of legitimate free expression, although it is widely and loosely interpreted and rarely interrogated through methodical empirical research.
Recommended publications
  • Sample Chapter
    Copyright material – 9780230301870 Contents Table of Cases vii Table of Legislation xv Editors and Contributors xix Preface by Mark Stephens xxiii Part I The Legal, Ethical and Editorial Landscape 1 Privacy: A Judicial Perspective 3 David Eady 2 The Rights of Journalism and the Needs of Audiences 35 Onora O’Neill 3 Why We Write: Three Magic Words – ‘The Public Interest’ 46 Alan Rusbridger Part II The Practitioner’s View – Protecting Free Expression and Curbing Abuses 4 The Ultimate Balancing Test 63 Pia Sarma 5 Privacy Protection – Luxury Goods or Essential Commodity? 78 Amber Melville-Brown 6 ‘People are so much more interesting than things’: Protecting Free Expression 104 Gavin Millar QC 7 ‘You say tomato …’: A Comparison of English and US Privacy Law Principles 128 Robert Balin and Yuli Takatsuki Part III Confronting Current and Future Challenges 8 Privacy and Free Expression: Competing or Complementary Rights? 151 Michael Harris and Kirsty Hughes 9 The Internet as a Lens: Concepts of Privacy in Online Spaces 167 Jeffrey Hermes Index 193 v Copyright material – 9780230301870 PART I The Legal, Ethical and Editorial Landscape Copyright material – 9780230301870 Copyright material – 9780230301870 1 Privacy: A Judicial Perspective David Eady Introduction: the wider context Towards the end of the 20th century, there developed in most of the ‘west- ern’ democracies a concern to protect personal privacy and, if possible, by means of enforceable legal remedies. There were a number of factors under- lying this general trend, some driven by technological developments in the handling and dissemination of information, others by more elusive social or moral considerations.
    [Show full text]
  • Journalism in Jordan: a Comparative Analysis of Press Freedom in the Post-Arab Spring Environment
    Global Media Journal ISSN: 1550-7521 Special Issue 2015 Journalism in Jordan: A comparative analysis of press freedom in the post-Arab spring environment Matt J. Duffy, Hadil Maarouf 1. PhD, Berry College, GA,USA 2. Center for International Media Education, Georgia State University Corresponding author: Matt J. Duffy, PhD, Berry College, GA,USA. E-mail: mattjduffy@gmail.com 1. Abstract Although once known for one of the most vibrant media sectors in the Arab world, the press freedom ranking of Jordan has declined in recent years. Despite governmental assurances during the height of the Arab Spring, promised reforms in freedom of the press have failed to materialize. By studying primary and secondary sources and interviewing Jordanian journalists, the authors identify four main developments that show diminished press freedom in Jordan. These developments will be described in detail and examined in the context of international media law. The analysis finds that the Jordanian approach to media regulation is often at odds with the approach recommended by the United Nations free speech rapporteurs. The authors also examine the press system of Jordan through the lens of Ostini and Fung’s press system theory. 1 Global Media Journal ISSN: 1550-7521 Special Issue 2015 2. Introduction organizations support the observation As the Arab region erupted in protests in that press freedom has gotten worse in early 2011, the king of Jordan appeared Jordan (see figures 1 and 2.) to see the writing on the wall. He fired Figure 1: Freedom House his cabinet and called for immediate changes in the organization of his Press Freedom Ranking government.
    [Show full text]
  • Theos Turbulentpriests Reform:Layout 1
    Turbulent Priests? The Archbishop of Canterbury in contemporary English politics Daniel Gover Theos Friends’ Programme Theos is a public theology think tank which seeks to influence public opinion about the role of faith and belief in society. We were launched in November 2006 with the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor. We provide • high-quality research, reports and publications; • an events programme; • news, information and analysis to media companies and other opinion formers. We can only do this with your help! Theos Friends receive complimentary copies of all Theos publications, invitations to selected events and monthly email bulletins. If you would like to become a Friend, please detach or photocopy the form below, and send it with a cheque to Theos for £60. Thank you. Yes, I would like to help change public opinion! I enclose a cheque for £60 made payable to Theos. Name Address Postcode Email Tel Data Protection Theos will use your personal data to inform you of its activities. If you prefer not to receive this information please tick here By completing you are consenting to receiving communications by telephone and email. Theos will not pass on your details to any third party. Please return this form to: Theos | 77 Great Peter Street | London | SW1P 2EZ S: 97711: D: 36701: Turbulent Priests? what Theos is Theos is a public theology think tank which exists to undertake research and provide commentary on social and political arrangements. We aim to impact opinion around issues of faith and belief in The Archbishop of Canterbury society.
    [Show full text]
  • The Demise of the Super-Injunction
    DEVELOPMENTS IN PRIVACY LAW: WHAT A DIFFERENCE A YEAR MAKES Richard Spearman QC 25 April 2012 The Report on “Super-Injunctions, Anonymised Injunctions and Open Justice” The rise and fall of super-injunctions The Committee chaired by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, was set up in April 2010 in response to concern following two cases: RJW and SJW v Guardian News and Media Ltd (“Trafigura”) – 11/9/09 Maddison J • The Order made in that case provided: “Until after the conclusion of the hearing on the Return Date or further order in the meantime, the First Respondent must not use and must not publish or communicate or disclose to any other person (other than (i) by way of disclosure to legal advisers instructed in relation to these proceedings for the purpose of obtaining legal advice in relation to these proceedings (ii) otherwise for the purpose of these proceedings or (iii) for the purpose of carrying this Order into effect): (a) the information that the Applicants have obtained an injunction and/or (b) the existence of these proceedings and/or (c) the Applicants’ interest in these proceedings; and must not cause or authorise any other person, firm or company to do any of those acts.” • At the original hearing, which was “without notice on notice” to GNM, Maddison J granted relief on an interim basis until the Return Date. • Thereafter, the issues – including whether revealing that Trafigura had obtained an injunction would have “frustrated or rendered impracticable the interests of justice” - were never argued further: initially, the Return Date hearing was postponed by agreement due to delays in the preparation of evidence; subsequently, it never happened because the proceedings were compromised (there having been a furore in the meantime as to whether the order of Maddison J purported to prevent the reporting of proceedings in Parliament).
    [Show full text]
  • Searching for Privacy in a Mixed Jurisdiction
    Searching for Privacy in a Mixed Jurisdiction Hector L. MacQueen* I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 73 II. PROTECTING PRIVACY IN SCOTS LAW TO 2000 .................................. 74 III. THE IMPACT OF DOMESTICATED HUMAN RIGHTS LAW ..................... 77 IV. SCOTS LAW: MAKING CHOICES......................................................... 83 A. Breach of Confidence............................................................... 84 B. The Actio Iniuriarum ................................................................ 88 V. ANALYSIS AND QUESTIONS................................................................. 94 VI. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 97 I. INTRODUCTION Reviewing A History of Private Law in Scotland in the Tulane Law Review in 2004, Shael Herman explained how the collection (published in 2000) left him with an impression of the “eclectic, open-textured character of Scots legal evolution”, even if sometimes he had a “a sense of having toured a juridical Australia or Galapagos Islands inhabited by exotic flora and fauna not found elsewhere”.1 He noted the complexity of the relationship between Scots and English law, and observed: To be sure, between Scotland and England there are striking political and cultural commonalities too numerous to detail. It could hardly be otherwise for two island nations that share a language, a currency, and a border. Yet, as the collection under review shows,
    [Show full text]
  • Fickle Justice: Judicial Idiosyncrasy in UK Privacy Cases
    Fickle Justice: Judicial Idiosyncrasy in UK Privacy Cases PAUL WRAGGt I. INTRODUCTION In 1990, the Federal Court of Australia rejected counsel's submission that English authorities on the "public interest" defense in breach of confidence claims ought to be adopted. The court dismissively described those authorities as "not so much a rule of law as an invitation to judicial idiosyncrasy."' The same comment seems equally applicable today. As is well-established in British common law, when deciding claims for misuse of private information (which replaces breach of confidence),2 the court must decide whether the claimant's reasonable expectation of privacy is outweighed by the contribution to a debate of public interest that the publication makes.3 As the case law shows, this is usually a delicate balance that may involve fine distinctions. Yet despite judicial recognition that the "applicable principles [should] be stated with reasonable clarity ' 4 so as to avoid accusations of judicial idiosyncrasy, the approach taken to determining the question of "public interest" remains an invitation to such, especially where celebrities' private lives are involved. Recent developments suggest broad diversity in the methodology of evaluating the worth of privacy-invading expression in which both skeptical and generous approaches are evident. These idiosyncratic factors are the subject of discussion in this Article.5 By examining the recent case law, it will be argued that since the public interest test pervades a range of measures relating to the misuse of private information tort, the issue of judicial idiosyncrasy must be addressed by an appellate court. The adoption of the skeptical approach as tLecturer in Law, School of Law, University of Leeds, UK.
    [Show full text]
  • My Scientology Movie
    BBC FILMS & BBC WORLDWIDE Present A RED BOX FILMS PRODUCTION Directed by: John Dower Presented by: Louis Theroux Written by: John Dower & Louis Theroux Produced by: Simon Chinn MY SCIENTOLOGY MOVIE U.K. production R/T: 99 minutes Shot on Sony F55 and Canon CS00-PL (Panasonic HE120 and Flip Mino HD) TFF 2016- For further publicity information please contact: Emma Griffiths EMMA GRIFFITHS PR emma@eg-pr.com www.eg-pr.com TIFF 2016: US Sales Contact: Josh Braun-Submarine Entertainment-info@submarine.com International Sales Contact: Mark Lane- HanWay Select- mfl@hanwayfilms.com SHORT SYNOPSIS Not your typical exposé. BBC doc-maker and journalist Louis Theroux teams up with director John Dower and double Academy Award winning producer Simon Chinn (Searching for Sugar, Man On Wire) to explore the self-mythologizing Church of Scientology. Following a long fascination with the religion and with much experience in dealing with eccentric, unpalatable and unexpected human behavior, the beguilingly unassuming Theroux won’t take no for an answer when his request to enter the Church’s headquarters is turned down. Inspired by the Church’s use of filming techniques, and aided by ex-members of the organization, Theroux uses actors to replay some incidents people claim they experienced as members in an attempt to better understand the way it operates. In a bizarre twist, it becomes clear that the Church is also making a film about Louis Theroux. Suffused with a good dose of humor and moments worthy of a Hollywood script, MY SCIENTOLOGY MOVIE is as outlandish as it is revealing.
    [Show full text]
  • A Better Death in a Digital Age: Post
    Publishing Office Aims and scope Abramis Academic ASK House Communication ethics is a discipline that supports communication Northgate Avenue practitioners by offering tools and analyses for the understanding of Bury St. Edmunds ethical issues. Moreover, the speed of change in the dynamic information Suffolk environment presents new challenges, especially for communication IP32 6BB practitioners. UK Tel: +44 (0)1284 700321 Ethics used to be a specialist subject situated within schools of philosophy. Fax: +44 (0)1284 717889 Today it is viewed as a language and systematic thought process available Email: info@abramis.co.uk to everyone. It encompasses issues of care and trust, social responsibility and Web: www.abramis.co.uk environmental concern and identifies the values necessary to balance the demands of performance today with responsibilities tomorrow. Copyright All rights reserved. No part For busy professionals, CE is a powerful learning and teaching approach that of this publication may be reproduced in any mate- encourages analysis and engagement with many constituencies, enhancing rial form (including pho- relationships through open-thinking. It can be used to improve organization tocopying or storing it in performance as well as to protect individual well-being. any medium by electronic means, and whether or not transiently or incidentally Submissions to some other use of this Papers should be submitted to the Editor via email. Full details on submission – publication) without the along with detailed notes for authors – are available online in PDF format: written permission of the www.communication-ethics.net copyright owner, except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Subscription Information Designs and Patents Act Each volume contains 4 issues, issued quarterly.
    [Show full text]
  • The BBC's Response to the Jimmy Savile Case
    House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee The BBC’s response to the Jimmy Savile case Oral and written evidence 23 October 2012 George Entwistle, Director-General, and David Jordan, Director of Editorial Policy and Standards, BBC 27 November 2012 Lord Patten, Chairman, BBC Trust, and Tim Davie, Acting Director-General, BBC Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 23 October and 27 November 2012 HC 649-i and -ii Published on 26 February 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £10.50 The Culture, Media and Sport Committee The Culture, Media and Sport Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and its associated public bodies. Current membership Mr John Whittingdale MP (Conservative, Maldon) (Chair) Mr Ben Bradshaw MP (Labour, Exeter) Angie Bray MP (Conservative, Ealing Central and Acton) Conor Burns MP (Conservative, Bournemouth West) Tracey Crouch MP (Conservative, Chatham and Aylesford) Philip Davies MP (Conservative, Shipley) Paul Farrelly MP (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme) Mr John Leech MP (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington) Steve Rotheram MP (Labour, Liverpool, Walton) Jim Sheridan MP (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North) Mr Gerry Sutcliffe MP (Labour, Bradford South) The following members were also members of the committee during the parliament. David Cairns MP (Labour, Inverclyde) Dr Thérèse Coffey MP (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal) Damian Collins MP (Conservative, Folkestone and Hythe) Alan Keen MP (Labour Co-operative, Feltham and Heston) Louise Mensch MP (Conservative, Corby) Mr Adrian Sanders MP (Liberal Democrat, Torbay) Mr Tom Watson MP (Labour, West Bromwich East) Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152.
    [Show full text]
  • Carina Trimingham -V
    Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWHC 1296 (QB) Case No: HQ10D03060 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 24/05/2012 Before: THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: Carina Trimingham Claimant - and - Associated Newspapers Limited Defendant - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Matthew Ryder QC & William Bennett (instructed by Mishcon de Reya) for the Claimant Antony White QC & Alexandra Marzec (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP) for the Defendant Hearing dates: 23,24,25,26,27 April 2012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Approved Judgment I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic. ............................. THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT Trimingham v. ANL Approved Judgment Mr Justice Tugendhat : 1. By claim form issued on 11 August 2010 the Claimant (“Ms Trimingham”) complained that the Defendant had wrongfully published private information concerning herself in eight articles. 2. Mr Christopher Huhne MP had been re-elected as the Member of Parliament for Eastleigh in Hampshire at the General Election held in May 2010, just over a month before the first of the articles complained of. He became Secretary of State for Energy in the Coalition Government. He was one of the leading figures in the Government and in the Liberal Democrat Party. In 2008 Ms Trimingham and Mr Huhne started an affair, unknown to both Mr Huhne’s wife, Ms Pryce, and Ms Trimingham’s civil partner. By 2008 Mr Huhne had become the Home Affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the Committee on Super-Injunctions
    Report of the Committee on Super-Injunctions: Super-Injunctions, Anonymised Injunctions and Open Justice Report of the Committee on Super-Injunctions Foreword The Committee on Super-Injunctions was set up in April 2010 in order to examine well- publicised issues of concern to Parliament, the judiciary, the media, and the wider public, following the Trafigura1 and John Terry cases2. These concerns centred round the perceived growth in the use and application of super-injunctions and the increasing frequency with which proceedings were being anonymised. Those concerns were raised by a number of people with the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee on Press Standards, Privacy and Libel (CMS Select Committee), as succinctly set out in its report of 24 February 2010 (the CMS Report)3. They were also raised by the Lord Chancellor and Ministry of Justice (MoJ) officials with the senior judiciary. As a result of those discussions and the Select Committee’s report I decided to establish this Committee4. The Committee’s terms of reference were: To examine issues of practice and procedure concerning the use of interim injunctions, including super-injunctions and anonymised proceedings, and their impact on the principles of open justice bearing in mind section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998; To provide a clear definition of the term super-injunction; and Where appropriate, to make proposals for reform, and particularly to make recommendations for any changes to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and Practice Directions. The Committee has examined, and makes recommendations on, the following: The practice and procedure governing interim injunctions which restrict freedom of speech, including super-injunctions and anonymised injunctions; The use of specialist judges to determine applications for super-injunctions; Super-injunctions and the reporting of Parliamentary proceedings; 1 RJW & SJW v The Guardian newspaper & Person or Persons Unknown (Claim no.
    [Show full text]
  • MOSLEY V UNITED KINGDOM
    [2012] E.M.L.R. 1 1 MOSLEY v UNITED KINGDOM European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section) Application No.48009/08 Lech Garlicki (President), Nicolas Bratza, Ljiljana Mijović, David Thór Björgvinsson, Päivi Hirvelä, Ledi Bianku, Nebojša Vučinić, Judges: April 12, 2011 [2012] E.M.L.R. 1 Freedom of expression; Misuse of private information; Newspapers; Notification; Positive obligations; Publication; Right to respect for private and family life H1 Human rights—misuse of private information—freedom of expression—art.8 and art.10—interim injunction—failure of newspaper to give advance warning of intended publication of private information—whether government obliged by art.8 to require press to notify person affected of intention to publish private information—no violation of art.8. H2 The applicant was the subject of an article published on March 30, 2008 on the front page and several inside pages of the erstwhile tabloid newspaper, the News of the World. The article was headlined “F1 boss has sick Nazi orgy with 5 hookers” and began with the sentence “Formula 1 motor racing chief Max Mosley is today exposed as a secret sadomasochistic sex pervert”. The article was illustrated with still photographs taken from video footage secretly recorded by one of the participants. Edited extracts from the video, together with still images, were published on the newspaper’s website and became available elsewhere on the internet. H3 On March 31, 2008, in response to a complaint from the applicant’s solicitors, the News of the World took down the edited video footage from its websites and gave an undertaking not to put it up again without 24 hours’ notice.
    [Show full text]