"I haven't rehearsed what I am going to tell the jury." (JM)

[ngb1066]

If there is a superinjunction in place I would hope there is not a post here referring to it - that could be expensive!

It is a chicken and egg situation.  Since we have no knowledge of a superinjunction yet, we are not bound by it.  It one exists and it is brought to our intention we are then bound by it.  We would need to know what we are precluding from mentioning.

Breach of an injunction is a contempt of court.  The consequences of that are very serious, far more so than in relation to defamation. When I was involved in legal monitoring for a newspaper and a publishing house I was always more concerned about contempt than I was about libel (although obviously libel was potentially very expensive and therefore important).

If we learn more about the superinjunction suggested here we can decide how much we can say about it.

 

[jon]

If there is a superinjunction in place I would hope there is not a post here referring to it - that could be expensive!

It is a chicken and egg situation.  Since we have no knowledge of a superinjunction yet, we are not bound by it.  It one exists and it is brought to our intention we are then bound by it.  We would need to know what we are precluding from mentioning.

Breach of an injunction is a contempt of court.  The consequences of that are very serious, far more so than in relation to defamation. When I was involved in legal monitoring for a newspaper and a publishing house I was always more concerned about contempt than I was about libel (although obviously libel was potentially very expensive and therefore important).

If we learn more about the superinjunction suggested here we can decide how much we can say about it.

 

Ryan Giggs had a superinjunction , the masses ignored it !!

[DCrump]

But the point of a super-injunction, as opposed to an ordinary injunction, is that no one can report its existance without being in contempt.

[ngb1066]

But the point of a super-injunction, as opposed to an ordinary injunction, is that no one can report its existance without being in contempt.

Almost, but not quite true.  What if anything can be reported depends upon the exact term of an injunction.  A superinjunction is an injunction which is so strict in its conditions that the person protected cannot be named.  It may even prevent identification of the occupation of the person or other details from which the person's identity might be deduced.  However there is no restriction on saying that the High Court has granted an injunction and that for example it relates to a public figure  and allegations about his private life.  To be bound by the terms of an injunction we have to have knowledge of it and in general of the terms of it.  That is why in the internet age these injunctions are rarely fully successful.

I would be interested to know if there is truth in the suggestion that there is an injunction in force protecting someone connected to this case.  If that information becomes available we can then decide how far we are legally able to go with it.

 

[DCrump]

But the point of a super-injunction, as opposed to an ordinary injunction, is that no one can report its existance without being in contempt.

Almost, but not quite true.  What if anything can be reported depends upon the exact term of an injunction.  A superinjunction is an injunction which is so strict in its conditions that the person protected cannot be named.  It may even prevent identification of the occupation of the person or other details from which the person's identity might be deduced.  However there is no restriction on saying that the High Court has granted an injunction and that for example it relates to a public figure  and allegations about his private life.  To be bound by the terms of an injunction we have to have knowledge of it and in general of the terms of it.  That is why in the internet age these injunctions are rarely fully successful.

I would be interested to know if there is truth in the suggestion that there is an injunction in force protecting someone connected to this case.  If that information becomes available we can then decide how far we are legally able to go with it.

 

What you are talking about is an 'anonymised injunction'. Super-injunctions were defined by Lord Neuberger in his report to the committee as follows (bolding mine):

A super-injunction is an interim injunction which restrains a person from: (i) publishing information which concerns the applicant and is said to be confidential or private; and, (ii) publicising or informing others of the existence of the order and the proceedings.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Reports/super-injunction-report-20052011.pdf

[ngb1066]

But the point of a super-injunction, as opposed to an ordinary injunction, is that no one can report its existance without being in contempt.

Almost, but not quite true.  What if anything can be reported depends upon the exact term of an injunction.  A superinjunction is an injunction which is so strict in its conditions that the person protected cannot be named.  It may even prevent identification of the occupation of the person or other details from which the person's identity might be deduced.  However there is no restriction on saying that the High Court has granted an injunction and that for example it relates to a public figure  and allegations about his private life.  To be bound by the terms of an injunction we have to have knowledge of it and in general of the terms of it.  That is why in the internet age these injunctions are rarely fully successful.

I would be interested to know if there is truth in the suggestion that there is an injunction in force protecting someone connected to this case.  If that information becomes available we can then decide how far we are legally able to go with it.

 

What you are talking about is an 'anonymised injunction'. Super-injunctions were defined by Lord Neuberger in his report to the committee as follows (bolding mine):

A super-injunction is an interim injunction which restrains a person from: (i) publishing information which concerns the applicant and is said to be confidential or private; and, (ii) publicising or informing others of the existence of the order and the proceedings.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Reports/super-injunction-report-20052011.pdf

The two are usually combined.  The point remains that we are not bound by the injunction unless we know that it exists and also know what its terms are.  The injunction will have named defendants/respondents and can bind others who know of its terms.  If we learn information about someone we are not necessarily in contempt of court by publishing that information on a forum such as this, even though the person passing on the information may be in contempt of court in having breached the injunction.  It all depends on the particular situation and facts.

I am still interested to know if there is in fact an injunction in force protecting someone connected with this case.  If I receive information initially by PM I can decide what can be posted here.


 

[grahameb]

Well if there is such an injuction surely it is not effective unless others do know about it? And if that is so then surely the person who took out the super injunction would want people to know? Otherwise he/she has wasted their money?

[DCrump]

I think you're missing my point NGB, or maybe I'm not making it very clearly. If you, or any other poster, somehow comes into the knowledge that a relative has a super-injunction you (or they) are prohibited from reporting that knowledge, and that would include posting it on this board. If you remember, this conversation was about your recollection of having seen a poster do just that. A super-injunction is an extension of an anonymised injunction, in that in addition to the injunction and anonymity orders there is an order prohibiting publicising or informing others of the existence of the order and the proceedings - and that order is typically made 'against the world' (contra mundum).

That said, I seriously doubt there is a super-injunction in place in this case as they are apparently very rare beasts.

[ngb1066]

Well if there is such an injuction surely it is not effective unless others do know about it? And if that is so then surely the person who took out the super injunction would want people to know? Otherwise he/she has wasted their money?

They usually are a waste of money as the internet is impossible to censor effectively.  The person taking out the injunction aims to keep the information secret by targeting those people who have the information and who are considered likely to publish it.  In order to try to limit the spread of the information the persons against the injunction is targeted are prohibited even from referring to the existence of the injunction.  The person taking out the injunction thereby hopes that dissemination of the information will be prevented and they therefore do not wish other people to know about the injunction.  The problem with that of course is that people who do not know about the injunction are not bound by it, so if the sensitive information becomes available to such people they may publish it without risk of being found in contempt of court. They can of course still be liable to proceedings for libel or slander.

[DCrump]

Well if there is such an injuction surely it is not effective unless others do know about it? And if that is so then surely the person who took out the super injunction would want people to know? Otherwise he/she has wasted their money?

You would think so wouldn't you? But this is why you will not see the media saying so-and-so has obtained a super-injunction. Remember that the main body of the injunction is to prevent one party from doing what the other doesn't like, and that remains as an oder between those two parties. The 'super' part just prevents everyone else from reporting the fact that the first order exists.

[ngb1066]

I think you're missing my point NGB, or maybe I'm not making it very clearly. If you, or any other poster, somehow comes into the knowledge that a relative has a super-injunction you (or they) are prohibited from reporting that knowledge, and that would include posting it on this board. If you remember, this conversation was about your recollection of having seen a poster do just that. A super-injunction is an extension of an anonymised injunction, in that in addition to the injunction and anonymity orders there is an order prohibiting publicising or informing others of the existence of the order and the proceedings - and that order is typically made 'against the world' (contra mundum).

That said, I seriously doubt there is a super-injunction in place in this case as they are apparently very rare beasts.

I think you have made your points very clearly and in reality I do not believe that we are in disagreement about the issues.  In the example you give if we became aware of an injunction prohibiting certain facts being published, including the existence of the injunction itself, we could be held in contempt if we published the information.  However as you will be aware (you have I suspect a legal background) contempt of court is criminal in nature even though administered in this type of case through the civil courts.  It would be necessary to prove that we knew not only that there was an injunction restraining the publication of specific information, but also that it covered the identity of the person who obtained the injunction and the existence of the injunction itself.  If we receive information that family member XX has obtained an injunction restraining publication of allegations against that person, unless we also received information of additional "gagging" provisions attached to the injunction we would be free to publish the fact that the injunction had been obtained.  I accept that we would have to take great care in this.  A High Court judge is unlikely to have much of a sense of humour if he believes an injunction has been deliberately flouted.

At the moment this is all academic but if there is further information we can (carefully) assess how best to proceed.

   

[DCrump]

Actually I think we are probably confusing each other!

What I'm saying is that if A has a super-injunction against B prohibiting B from doing X, B cannot do X and no one can report the fact that A has the injunction (or even the fact that A applied for it).

But C can do X because because C is not named in the injunction (provided that C is not assisted in doing X by virtue of B having violated the anonymity order).

So if you receive knowledge that A has an injunction against B prohibiting them from doing X, you can still do X (although that would probably be stupid) and you can report the existance of the injunction.

If on the other hand you receive information that A has a super-injunction preventing B from doing X, you can still do X (but see stupidity comment above) but you cannot report the fact that the super-injunction exists.

Remember that I was responding to your earlier comment which was:

I seem to recall a post a few months ago referring to a superinjunction obtained by one of the relatives.  It would be interesting to hear more about this.

Anyone still awake? 

[grahameb]

Anyone still awake? 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz. All this is going over my head. In the wild west there wuz nothin a 6 gun couldn't solve.

[Roch]

It was 'Ron Cook' who posted an excerpt from an article in the Daily Star (?) regarding a list of current super injunctions.

In that list was an entry worded similar to below:

'Information relating to a police investigation"

[ngb1066]

It was 'Ron Cook' who posted an excerpt from an article in the Daily Star (?) regarding a list of current super injunctions.

In that list was an entry worded similar to below:

'Information relating to a police investigation"

Thank you Rochford, yes that was the post I was trying to remember.  It looks as if I have taken 2+2 and made 5.