PJS v News Group Newspapers

PJS v News Group Newspapers
Court Court of Appeal of England and Wales
Full case name PJS v News Group Newspapers Limited
Decided 22 January 2016
Citation(s) [2016] EWCA Civ 100
Transcript(s) British and Irish Legal Information Institute
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Lord Justice Jackson
Lady Justice King

PJS v News Group Newspapers ([2016] EWCA Civ 100) is an English legal case in which an anonymised privacy injunction[n 1] was obtained by a claimant, identified in court documents as "PJS", in order to prohibit publication of the details of a sexual encounter between him and two other people.[1]

In January 2016, PJS applied to the High Court of Justice in London for an injunction to prevent publication of a news story relating to the encounter by The Sun on Sunday. This was declined on the basis that publication would be in the public interest. PJS applied to the Court of Appeal and was successful in overturning the High Court decision. In April 2016, the Court of Appeal ruled that the injunction should be lifted, as the allegations had been published widely both abroad and online. PJS then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which in May 2016 decided to uphold the injunction by a majority of 4-1.

The case has led to debate about the effectiveness of injunctions in the age of the Internet and social media websites.[2][3]

Case history

The claimant is married to "YMA"; both are well known in the entertainment business.[4] The couple have young children.[5] PJS engaged in sexual activity with two individuals known as "AB" and "CD" who later approached The Sun on Sunday regarding their sexual encounter.[6]

On 18 January 2016, PJS applied to the High Court of Justice for an injunction to prohibit The Sun on Sunday from publishing the story. This was declined by Mr Justice Cranston on the basis that publication would be in the public interest, as it would correct a false image of marital commitment that PJS had presented. Cranston stated: "The Claimant and his partner have portrayed an image to the world of a committed relationship. That portrayal has taken a number of forms, Mr Tomlinson QC correctly points out there is always a dilemma for a public figure in that if they do not provide publicity they will be pursued the media [sic]. But undoubtedly the Claimant and his partner have on a number of occasions and in various ways portrayed an image of commitment. Moreover the Claimant has himself actively sought publicity.[7]

PJS took the case to the Court of Appeal, which overturned Cranston's decision on 22 January 2016 and granted an injunction preventing publication of the story. The Court ruled that the privacy rights of PJS under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights outweighed the Article 10 freedom of expression rights of the tabloid newspaper that wished to publish the story.[4] The judges found that the image of commitment PJS and YMA had presented was accurate, as commitment does not necessarily entail complete fidelity, and therefore the publication did not correct a false image and was not in the public interest. Lord Justice Jackson commented in his ruling: "The proposed story, if it is published, will be devastating for the claimant."[7]

Following the granting of the injunction, the identity of PJS was reported by news media outlets in the United States, Canada, and Scotland.[8][9] Paul Staines, a political blogger based in Ireland, was claimed to have broken the injunction but said that he was not subject to the UK gagging order.[10][11] Within England and Wales, the couples' lawyers worked to ensure that web blocking actions were effective.[12] Former Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming, who had used parliamentary privilege to name the claimant in CTB v News Group Newspapers on the floor of the House of Commons in 2011, said that the matter "isn't a secret any more" and urged judges to lift the injunction.[5]

The Sun on Sunday appealed against the ban on publishing the name of PJS,[13] and on 18 April 2016 the Court of Appeal ruled that the injunction should be lifted, as the allegations had been published widely both abroad and online. Lord Justice Jackson stated: "Much of the harm which the injunction was intended to prevent has already occurred... The court should not make orders which are ineffective."[14]

PJS appealed the decision to lift the interim injunction to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.[15] The court heard an appeal on 21 April 2016, and on 19 May 2016 delivered a judgment by a 4-1 margin allowing the injunction to remain in force.[16] Lord Toulson issued a dissenting judgment arguing that the details that the injunction was in place to protect had already been published widely on social media. Lord Mance noted in his decision to uphold the injunction: "There is no public interest (however much it may be of interest to some members of the public) in publishing kiss-and-tell stories or criticisms of private sexual conduct, simply because the persons involved are well-known; and so there is no right to invade privacy by publishing them."[17] He added "The court is well aware of the lesson which Canute gave his courtiers. Unlike Canute, the courts can take steps to enforce its injunction pending trial."[18] Following the Supreme Court decision, there were reports that some Twitter users had received e-mails from the site's legal team asking them to remove tweets naming the couple in the "celebrity threesome", and pointing out that the site's rules require that users "comply with all local laws regarding their online conduct and acceptable content."[19]

Reactions

Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg compared the injunction in the case to the Spycatcher affair of the 1980s, saying that "...both cases raise the same question: at what point should the courts stop trying to preserve the confidentiality of information that is known to many but not to all?"[2] Kathy English with the Toronto Star wrote "I am not at all comfortable with the fact that defending principles of press freedom involves a legal battle to publish lurid details of anyone’s alleged 'three-way sexual encounter.' But... I do see public interest in the interesting questions this injunction raises about global press freedom and media law within the borderless internet and the lengths to which the super wealthy can and do go in Britain to use the courts to try to block embarrassing information in that country and beyond."[20]

The case was the first time that the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled on an issue related to privacy and the right to freedom of speech, and was described as creating a de facto privacy law which would make it difficult for UK newspapers to publish future "kiss and tell" stories, by virtue of placing privacy above the public's right to know.[19] Media lawyer David Engel described the ruling as drawing a clear distinction between confidentiality and privacy, saying the Court "...has made the practical point that even where people may be able to find the information online, that is qualitatively different - in terms of the distress and damage caused to the victim - from having the story plastered across the front pages of the tabloids."[21]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ The injunction has been incorrectly referred to as a "super-injunction" in some media reports. Super-injunctions prohibit publication of the fact that an injunction has been obtained.

References

  1. ↑ "PJS v News Group Newspapers". 5RB. 22 January 2016. Retrieved 13 April 2016.
  2. 1 2 Rozenberg, Joshua (11 April 2016). "This celebrity injunction will probably rebound – a case of the ‘Streisand effect’". The Guardian. Retrieved 21 May 2016.
  3. ↑ Coleman, Clive (19 May 2016). "Celebrity injunction deja vu all over again". BBC News. Retrieved 1 June 2016.
  4. 1 2 Aidan's Blog (19 March 2016). "Case Law: PJS v News Group Newspapers, Court of Appeal grants privacy injunction – Sara Mansoori and Aidan Wills". Inforrm.wordpress.com. Retrieved 14 April 2016.
  5. 1 2 Agency. "Celebrity injunction: Former MP urges judge to lift privacy order". The Independent. Retrieved 19 April 2016.
  6. ↑ Barrett, David (21 March 2016). "The return of the injunction: Entertainer 'PJS' wins legal bid over extra-marital threesome". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 13 April 2016.
  7. 1 2 PJS v News Group Newspapers Limited [2016] EWCA Civ 100 (22 January 2016), Court of Appeal (England and Wales)
  8. ↑ PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 393 (18 April 2016).
  9. ↑ Rutherford, Iain (18 April 2016). "Why a much-debated celebrity gagging order didn't apply in Scotland". BBC News. Retrieved 31 May 2016.
  10. ↑ Jackson, Jasper (15 April 2016). "Celebrity injunction: newspaper on sale in England may have breached order". The Guardian. Retrieved 30 May 2016.
  11. ↑ Keena, Colm. "Guido Fawkes blogger defends article on UK gagging order". The Irish Times. Archived from the original on 14 April 2016. Retrieved 30 May 2016. (Subscription required (help)).
  12. ↑ Hudson, Alastair. Equity and Trusts. Abingdon and New York: Routledge. p. 1076. ISBN 9781317306948.
  13. ↑ "Who is PJS? Court rules that injunction should be lifted". Theweek.co.uk. Retrieved 19 April 2016.
  14. ↑ "Celebrity injunction should be lifted, Court of Appeal rules". BBC News. 18 April 2016. Retrieved 19 April 2016.
  15. ↑ "PJS -v- News Group Newspapers Ltd - The Supreme Court". Supremecourt.uk. Retrieved 19 April 2016.
  16. ↑ PJS (Appellant) v News Group Newspapers Ltd (Respondent)
  17. ↑ "Who is PJS? Twitter warns users not to name celebrity". The Week. 20 May 2016. Retrieved 21 May 2016.
  18. ↑ Gore, Will (19 May 2016). "The celebrity injunction remains, but the law is redundant in the digital age". The Independent. Retrieved 21 May 2016.
  19. 1 2 Watson, Leon (20 May 2016). "Celebrity threesome injunction: Twitter issues warning to users naming couple". The Telegraph. Retrieved 21 May 2016.
  20. ↑ "Is court-ordered secrecy futile in the digital age?". Toronto Star.
  21. ↑ "Celebrity injunction: PJS cannot be named, says Supreme Court". BBC.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.