Was that a similar injunction applied for by Ryan Giggs, to prevent knowledge of his affair coming out? How does that differ from an ordinary injunction?
Yes, normally an injunction is against a named individual and the existence of the injunction is not secret. However in a series of cases senior judges increased the potential ambit of injunctions way beyond what was formerly considered possible. This type of injunction is commonly described as a superinjuction, although that is not the legal term. This can include restricting anyone, not just named defendants, from publishing information, including information of the very existence of the injunction. The penalties for breaching injunctions like this can be draconian. Usually they ultimately break down because as a result of reporting in foreign publications, outside UK jurisdiction.
The fact that social media speculation about the private life of Starmer is rife, yet the MSM is completely devoid of coverage on the various allegations made, indicates to me that there are probably several wide ranging injunctions in force. Some journalists have dropped hints but they are being very careful indeed. I think George Galloway has pushed the boundaries further but even he limits his statements to strong innuendo, rather than spelling out what most people who have looked into this believe.
I suspect the lid will not be kept of this for ever, but I remember saying the same thing about Nicola Strurgeon and I was wrong on that. Whatever injunctions she has obtained seemed to have held.
