Don’t say I didn’t tell you so – superinjunctions, anonymised injunctions and Scotland

Forgive me this brief moment of “I told you so”ness.

A few weeks ago (26th April) in a spoof post about superinjunction revelations I wrote this,

“Meantime the English judges are purporting to give extra-territorial effect to their injunctions by pronouncing them against the world (and treating every download in ENgland as publication in England allowing them to found jurisdiction for proceedings for breach of the injunction and contempt against those from other countries writing for domestic audiences, using servers held in their own countries – although the legal consequence of this for the publisher in their own jurisdiction are non-existent). The fact that they don’t even apply in Scotland – and a Scottish paper could publish in an edition published and distributed up here, unless appropriate proceedings have been taken in Scotland – seems not to bother the judges. It is a pity that the cases involve [redacted] with other [redacted] or [redacted] with [redacted] and not more serious matters – for it would be a useful reminder to the parties and to the English courts if one of the Scottish papers decided to publish the name of the claimant.”

At the time I had hoped that one of the Scottish papers would name Fred Goodwin given the potential public interest element in his case. But no-one bit – despite a few interesting exchanges on twitter (and off-twitter) with some Scottish journalists.

Of course today the Sunday Herald has identified CTB – plastering his picture across the front page (with his eyes blacked out like those Tony Blair posters the Tories used in 1997). They have a story inside naming him in the headline but carefully avoiding references in the story. I have not been able to see the story in the on-line version of the paper – but the site is struggling to load, no doubt due to the high readership today.

And in the editorial the Sunday Herald points out,

“Today we identify the footballer whose name has been linked to a court superinjunction by thosands of postings on Twitter. Why?

“Because we believe it unsustainable that the law can be used to prevent newspapers from publishing information that readers can access on the internet at the click of a mouse. [L&G: as the old saying goes, “Aye right”]

“Because we believe it is unfair that the law can not only be used to prevent the publication of information which may be in the public interest but also to prevent the mention of any court order [editorial comment by L&G: mmm, they fall into the error committed by so many here that this is an anonymised injunction not a superinjunction. This error is repeated in the main report of the story. As justifications go this is spurious. There are superinjunctions out there that most journalists and politicians will be familiar with which no-one in the British media reports, and for very good reasons.]

“The so-called superinjunction [L&G: which it isn’t] holds no legal force in Scotland where a separate court order is needed. [L&G: and we all know this is the real reason for publication. They wouldn’t have done it if they were based in Manchester]”

Before going on to make various comments about freedom of expression and restrictive privacy laws. As a tactic to boost the circulation of a failing newspaper it is an interesting one. Those looking for the potential impact on privacy cases would be well-advised to keep an eye on the Court of Session rolls of court to see if any odd initials or weel kent names start appearing.

Edit add 11 pm to note the following legal developments during the day: Campbell Deane from Bannatyne Kirkwood France & Co argues that Scottish newspapers are bound by English injunctions. This purports to be “the legal view” which will come as a surprise to many (most?) scots lawyers. Deane relies on obiter remarks in the Scottish Spycatcher litigation which was a case on breach of confidence to suggest a Scottish paper could be in contempt of court in relation to an English injunction. This also appears to run counter to the general rules on enforcement of foreign injunctions (especially interim orders) at common law (they weren’t recognised broadly) and under the more recent legislation where new orders are required up here – as was confirmed in the G v Caledonian Newspapers case in 1995.

The Sunday herald had the story legally checked by Paul McBride QC who confirmed the view that every Scots lawyer I know (aside from Mr Deane) took, “English law injunctions do not have jurisdiction in Scotland. If a party wanted to restrict the Scottish press, as well as the English, it would need to undertake parallel legal proceedings in Scotland, in order to obtain an “interdict”. This did not happen in the present case and so the Scottish press is not bound by the English injunction.”

About loveandgarbage

I watch the telly and read when not doing law stuff and plugging my decade and a half old unwatched Edinburgh fringe show.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Don’t say I didn’t tell you so – superinjunctions, anonymised injunctions and Scotland

  1. Pingback: Postcard from The Staterooms: ********** Edition « Charon QC

  2. Tony D says:

    I was quite surprised by the Campbell Deane piece, and also found it rather confused/confusing. It begins by discussing interdicts in the first para, uses interdict again at the first mention in the second para then switches to exclusively using the term injunction, with no further distinction between them.

    You don’t get a giant scone, but I’m sure you should get a cherry scone at least.

  3. Pingback: The injunction DID protect the footballer Google search volumes show » Malcolm Coles

  4. Pingback: CTB v. Twitter, Inc. and Unknown Persons: Trying to Flog a Dead Horse « THE TRIAL WARRIOR BLOG

  5. Gavin Ward says:

    Just as ASBOs led to Super ASBOs and injunctions led to superinjunctions, perhaps soon we’ll see superinterdicts?

    Just as I write this I note your lyrics on twitter:- “Ye cannae superinterdict your grannie aff the bus [you’ll have to apply to the English High Court]” 😉

  6. Pingback: What should CTB have done to protect his position in Scotland? | Love and Garbage – some commonplace musings

  7. Allan says:

    Ah, like you i wish the Sunday Herald had gone with the Fred Goodwin story, rather than the CBT story.

  8. Pingback: Are you a celebrity? Have you a secret? Consider your choice of lawyer carefully. | Love and Garbage – some commonplace musings

  9. Pingback: An apology to my regular reader | Love and Garbage – some commonplace musings

  10. Pingback: Media law mop up: CTB; buried apologies; and phone hacking judicial review | media law & ethics

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s