Court gagging orders unravel as Twitter allegations ruffle feathers of celebrities

The authority of Britain’s civil courts appears increasingly fragile after the names of celebrities said to have obtained gagging injunctions – and their alleged misdemeanours – were circulated unimpeded on Twitter.Amid signs that lawyers representing aggrieved clients are unable or reluctant to take action against the US-based site or its users, the ability of the wealthy to suppress inconvenient truths and falsehoods appears severely compromised. see:A legal crisis in 140 characters
Celebrity gagging orders revealed on Twitter. 50,000 followers. Lawyers unable to remove tweets. Is this the end of the #superinjunction?In what has been described as the “Spycatcher moment” of the internet era, a single user of Twitter has brought the culture of the super-injunction to its knees by drawing nearly 55,000 followers to a list of celebrities alleged to have links with the secretive gagging orders.The frenzy of activity on the micro-blogging site yesterday makes the super-injunctions as ineffective as the ban placed on publication of the autobiography of the MI5 officer Peter Wright in the mid 1980s. The ban on Spycatcher was lifted in 1988 when the law lords realised that overseas publication of the book made a gagging restriction pointless. Khan: Jeremy Clarkson injunction rumours are a ‘nightmare’
Jemima Khan described weekend rumours that she has taken out a gagging order preventing “intimate photos” of herself and Jeremy Clarkson being published as a “bloody nightmare”.

Khan has consistently denied having obtained a gagging order. On Monday, Mark Stephens, a senior media lawyer at Finers Stephens Innocent, told the Guardian: “This is discriminatory justice: not one single woman has sought or obtained a superinjunction.”

Keith Arrowsmith, the head of intellectual property and media at Ralli solicitors, told the Guardian that superinjunctions – where even the existence of a gagging order cannot be reported – are rendered ineffective without an international “supercourt” to implement them. “Anything the government says about privacy law is now nonsense, because they can only tweak UK law.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.