Injunctions doubt after Giggs is exposed

Legalbrief reports that it marked the end of an extraordinary period during which the issue of super-injunctions, which effectively muzzle mainstream media in privacy cases but appear helpless against the Internet, gripped the UK media. Cameron, who appeared on ITV1's Daybreak breakfast show, described the current situation as 'unsustainable'. Ominously for Manchester United star Ryan Giggs, other footballers, TV celebrities and businessmen hiding behind at least 80 current injunctions, Cameron said it was time for Parliament to address the issue. The Telegraph reports that Giggs would have felt a cold chill if he had heard Cameron say that 'like everybody else' he knew the identity of the player who had gagged the media from reporting his affair with Imogen Thomas, the former reality TV star. 'It's not fair on the newspapers if all the social media can report this and the newspapers can't,' he said. 'So the law and the practice has got to catch up with how people consume media today.' The report notes that neither Giggs nor the Prime Minister could have realised just how the situation would progress by the end of the day, as judges fought in vain to prevent the public - and the MP John Hemming - from making them look like fools.BBC News reports that using parliamentary privilege to break the court order, Hemming said it would not be practical to imprison the 75 000 Twitter users who had named the player. The High Court rejected two attempts on Monday to overturn the ban, the first after a Scottish paper identified Giggs on Sunday, and the second after Hemming's action. Giggs' lawyers have also obtained a High Court order asking Twitter to reveal details of users who had revealed his identity after thousands named him. Attorney-General Dominic Grieve told the Commons that Cameron had asked for a joint committee of peers and MPs to investigate the use of privacy orders. Full report in The Telegraph Full BBC News report

Giggs should have gone to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) for help, says PPC chair Baroness Buscombe. The Guardian reports that Buscombe claimed the organisation would have helped stop publication of the allegations against him. The report quotes her as saying: 'We have people coming to us all the time to ask us to stop information being published. We have an almost 100% success rate in that.' A spokesperson for the Sun declined to comment on whether or not it would have agreed to reveal Giggs' identity if the PCC had requested it. Full report in The Guardian

A report in The Guardian notes that the UK's Lord Chief Justice welcomed a report by an influential judicial committee on privacy orders that called for super-injunctions to be granted only in 'very limited circumstances' and normally for short periods of time. But, says the report, he admitted that many bloggers and sites such as Twitter were publishing information that traditional newspapers and television stations were prevented from revealing by court orders. There is no mention in the report of the impact of Twitter or the Internet on the enforcement of court orders, but the Lord Chief Justice said readers placed greater trust in the contents of traditional media than in those 'who peddle lies' on Web sites. The Internet had 'by no means the same degree of intrusion into privacy as the story being emblazoned on the front pages of newspapers', which 'people trust more', the report quotes him as saying. Full report in The Guardian Report on super-injunctions

The Internet was 'not a reliable place', according to The Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, who led the committee on super-injunctions. He described reports on 'the web' as being 'often very inaccurate indeed', says a report in The Independent. However, it notes, the comments of the judges provoked concerns over the judiciary's understanding of modern media. Padraig Reidy, of Index on Censorship, is quoted in the report as saying: 'Lord Judge's comments merely highlight the false dichotomy drawn between ''mainstream'' media and online social networks.' Steven Barnett, professor of communications at the University of Westminster, told the paper the judges would be criticised for their use of language, but agreed that something needed to be done to tackle those who 'maliciously' break the law online. 'Those who deliberately and systematically attempt to undermine the decisions of the courts should be sought out and brought to justice,' he is quoted as saying. 'But the judges should avoid notions like clamping down and other Soviet language which doesn't do them any favours.' Full report in The Independent

Giggs was one of a number of celebrities who were identified by an anonymous user on Twitter earlier this month as having obtained super-injunctions to hide alleged affairs. The Telegraph reports that the list of celebrities has since been forwarded to an estimated 2m people. Twitter, which has millions of users worldwide, is based in the US and so is it outside the jurisdiction of the UK courts. According to legal experts, the action is unlikely to succeed as US-based companies could legally ignore or refuse to comply with a ruling by a British court. Last year the US passed a Bill to protect American writers and authors from 'libel tourism' in British courts. Under the legislation foreign libel judgments are not legally enforceable in the US. Full report in The Daily Telegraph

The case would pit the UK's protection of privacy against America's protection of free speech, according to Jennifer McDermott, head of media and public law at Withers LLP, in a report in The Daily Telegraph. She said: 'It was only a question of time before someone who has obtained a super-injunction, would try to bring proceedings for contempt of court against the Tweeters and those supplying them with the information at an injuncted newspaper. To do this, a court application will first be made to get Twitter to divulge the identities of the relevant ''wrongdoers'' and, if successful, contempt proceedings could then be brought against them, which could result in them being fined or even imprisoned.' McDermott noted Twitter was likely to be viewed as a mere conduit of information like Google. 'But as it is based in California, where free speech rules, it is likely to be a long and arduous process to extract the relevant information,' she says, adding: 'This highlights the clash of US and UK cultures and why controlling the Internet is a complex, global issue.' Full report in The Daily Telegraph Top judge attacks politicians who reveal injunctions in Parliament

Meanwhile, Lord Prescott, the former deputy Prime Minister, on Monday won his latest bid to mount a legal challenge over the Metropolitan police's handling of the News of the World phone-hacking case. He and three others - Labour MP Chris Bryant, former Scotland Yard deputy assistant commissioner Brian Paddick and journalist Brendan Montague - had asked a high court judge to give them the go-ahead for a judicial review. The Guardian reports that Justice Foskett gave a ruling allowing their cases to go to a full hearing. According to the report, the four, who believe they were victims of phone hacking, claim there were human rights breaches in the police handling of their cases. Three others including the former media, culture and sport secretary, Tessa Jowell, asked the court to be recognised as interested parties, notes the report. Full report in The Guardian

Hugh Grant is considering whether to become the latest celebrity to take legal action over alleged phone hacking and has stepped up his campaign against tabloid newspapers, saying the sooner they go out of business the better. Grant said the police had shown him evidence that his phone had been hacked, including phone numbers, PIN numbers and bank account details of friends and relatives. The Guardian reports that he did not reveal the name of the publication, or publications involved, but said the numbers had 'all been written down by a private detective working for the paper'. Full report in The Guardian

Lawyers and celebrities seeking to prevent the world knowing their indiscretions have another hurdle in their path - Wikipedia - after its founder, Jimmy Wales, pledged to resist pressure to censor entries, According to a report on the IoL site. Referring to the Giggs' case, Wales is quoted as saying: 'This only became a story because the footballer is pursuing legal action against Twitter. It started to become a big political and social issue. Once that happens, it is a valid issue for Wikipedia. As an encyclopaedia, we try to document facts taken from reputable sources. We should not be stopped from recording facts.' Like Twitter, Wikipedia is based in San Francisco and does not have any physical presence in England, which it believes allows it to operate outside the legal jurisdiction of the English courts. Full report on the IoL site