IN PAGE LINKS

VIDEO

ARTICLES

WHAT IS SUPER - INJUNCTION ???

>>Legality of SuperInjunction

Super Injunction News:



by James Yardley
Super Injunctions: People Unite to Defend Free Speech..



Super-injunctions and open justice..





22nd May 2011

A Scottish newspaper has today identified the footballer it claims is linked to a controversial privacy case...



Q&A: Super-injunctions By Dominic Casciani BBC News home affairs correspondent



Injunction lawyer seeks Kelvin MacKenzie email trawl...



Twitter is "making a mockery" of privacy laws, Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt has said as he pledged to examine how best to bring regulations up to date. He said it was "crazy" that information which was not allowed to be printed in newspapers was widely available via the microblogging site and other internet sources....



Daily Mail Voice of
 Stephen Glover

These vile online lies only spread because judges are suppressing the truth....

Gareth Barry & Super Injunction
Live Tweets>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Super Injunction definition:

An injunction obtained in a secret convening of the court where in the result, the court file, the names of the parties and even the terms of the injunction order are secret except as between the parties, counsel, the judge and the court staff.

So What is Injunction ?

Injunction definition:

A court order that prohibits a party from doing something (restrictive injunction) or compels them to do something (mandatory injunction).

READ & LEARN MORE about Super-Injunctions from:
 
Report of the Committee on Super-Injunctions:Super-Injunctions, Anonymised Injunctions and OpenJustice

  Link to Text in PDF >>>            



An Article by Anne Lyons on the Legality of Super-Injunctions in light of ECHR (European Convention of Human Rights)

 by Anne Lyons

The freedoms of Press, Free Speech and the Right to Privacy

It is generally accepted that any limitation, which may be placed by the courts on the right to freedom of expression, should be the minimum necessary to achieve the desired objective. Prior restraint orders will inevitably limit freedom of expression, in particular the freedom of the press, and any interference with the press by the making of such orders must be properly justified as they will inevitably affect the ability of the media to perform its role in society.  The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights shows that interference with media freedom will rarely be justified by Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court has often reiterated that the press plays an essential role in a democratic society and that although it must not cross certain boundaries, in particular in relation to the reputation and rights of others and its duty to prevent the disclosure of confidential information, it is under an obligation to impart information and ideas on all matters of public interest.  The interest of ensuring a free press in a democratic society ought and must weigh heavily in the balance in deciding whether any curtailment of its freedom bears a reasonable relationship to the purposes of the curtailment. It is therefore imperative that any prior restraint order, whatever the context of the proceedings, should be granted with extreme caution

However, Art. 10 of the ECHR must be considered in tandem with Art. 8 of same which provides that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. Further, there shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right. Given the often complex balancing act between these two parameters, The House of Lords laid down the test to satisfy for the granting of an injunction which requires a plaintiff to show that his claim is not frivolous or vexatious—that there is “a serious question to be tried”; and where this is established, the court must then consider the balance of convenience which involves assessing the probable implications for both parties should the relief sought be granted or refused. Indeed Lord Nicholls spoke of “the continuing widespread concern at the apparent failure of the law to give individuals a reasonable degree of protection from unwanted intrusion in many situations.”

However, it can be argued that where a person of wealth can purchase a restraining injunction in order to save the inevitable blushes of unconscionable, clandestine behaviour, that this is an abuse of the process and remedies of the courts. For the vast majority of society, they are denied the opportunity to blanket themselves in the shield of the law, protecting themselves from embarrassment of previous indiscretions and the twitching of neighbours curiosity and gossip. Rather, the restraint of ‘unwanted intrusion’ is granted to those few privileged persons who craved for and created a position of public notoriety. They seek such restrain orders crying for privacy and respect for family, a respect distinctly absent outside their matrimonial bed. By abusing Art. 8 of the ECHR in order to primarily to protect their ‘brand’, those who seek a so-called super-injunction are merely serving to weaken the formidable strength of this effective remedy and diminishing it’s impact for those who seek these injunctions for reasons other than morally questionable behaviour. The law, and especially the injunction, was designed to protect persons from being the victims of other’s actions; they were not designed to protect people from their own bad behaviour and indiscretion.

Anne Lyons is an accomplished Economist and Political Theorist, currently completing her degree in Law.

(edited and presented by Amlaibh)

   



Staffordshire Social Service
Here you can find real stories of peoples who have to live with super-injunction or are subject to thereof.
 
Super-Injunction personal stories..