Superinjunction - Judgment in full now published

Much has been said about superinjunctions and we've carefully explained why information, news and plain  neighbourhood over the fence gossip is vital to the operation of a local neighbourhood watch scheme and neighbourhood police operations in general. Cutting through all the bluster. This is the newly released judgment on a high profile injunction case currently in the High Court but before we go there a word about the Judge.

A story Julian Bray told on BBC Radio Nottingham this morning: "Interestingly THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT was once the head of the UK's Civil Aviation Authority as Mr Christopher Tugendhat, and I met him on the runway, airside with the founder of Ryanair at Gatwick Airport when Mr Tugendhat suddenly announced he was changing careers and heading for the Bar.  We all wondered why he wanted to be a publican (true!)  Perhaps if  Mr Justice Tugendhat was still in charge of the CAA, he might have quickly sorted out the ash cloud situation? We will never know. We live in strange times!"

[2011] EWHC 1334 (QB)


Case No: HQ11X01432

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 23/05/2011

Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

CTB

Claimant

- and -

(1) NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LIMITED

(2) IMOGEN THOMAS

Defendants
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hugh Tomlinson QC and Sara Mansoori (instructed by Schillings) for the Claimant

Richard Spearman QC (instructed by Farrer & Co) for the First Defendant

David Price QC (of David Price Solicitors & Advocates) for the Second Defendant
Hearing date: 23 May 2011

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Judgment

Mr Justice Tugendhat :
1. At about 1430 this afternoon Eady refused NGN’s application to remove the anonymity he had granted to the claimant on 20 April. He said at para 23 ([2011] EWHC 1326 (QB)) that “It is important always to remember that the modern law of privacy is not concerned solely with secrets: it is also concerned importantly with intrusion”. Intrusion in this sense includes harassment.

2. Very shortly afterwards a name was mentioned by Mr Hemming MP in the House of Commons in the course of a question which was interrupted by the Speaker. On that basis NGN asked me to hear a further application shortly after 5pm for the anonymity of the claimant to be removed. As the public now know, anyone who wanted to find out the name of the claimant could have learnt it many days ago. The reason is that it is has been repeated thousands of times on the internet. NGN now want to join in.

3. It is obvious that if the purpose of this injunction were to preserve a secret, it would have failed in its purpose. But in so far as its purpose is to prevent intrusion or harassment, it has not failed. The fact that tens of thousands of people have named the claimant on the internet confirms that the claimant and his family need protection from intrusion into their private and family life. The fact that a question has been asked in Parliament seems to me to increase, and not to diminish the strength of his case that he and his family need that protection. The order has not protected the claimant and his family from taunting on the internet. It is still effective to protect them from taunting and other intrusion and harassment in the print media.

 
.. (C) Park Farm Neighbourhood Watch, Peterborough,UK E&OE Tel: 01733 345581 ALL ENQUIRIES LOCAL POLICE: 0845 4564564 >> Broadcast ISDN 01733 555319 ISDN Codecs G722&ATX >> Media Enquiries: 01733 345581 Skype:Julian.Bray.UK http://tinyurl.com/STANGROUNDPFNW