Welcome to our Public Beta Site - What does this mean?
Dublin: 13 °C Thursday 24 May, 2012

UK courts issue injunction specifically banning Twitter references

Image: thecrazyfilmgirl via Flickr

THE BRITISH COURTS have granted a so-called ‘super-injunction’ to the mother of a brain-damaged woman, preventing her from being named – in a move which, for the first time, explicitly bans users on Twitter and Facebook from naming her.

The Daily Telegraph reports that the woman was granted the order was granted by the Court of Protection, ensuring that she cannot be named by the press in reports about the woman and her brain-damaged daughter.

The brain-damaged woman, who lives in a care home, is surviving only through the use of a life support machine – a machine that her mother is currently seeking to have turned off, so that her daughter’s life can be ended.

The order also bans reporters from going within 50 metres of the daughter’s care home without being given prior permission.

It is believed that the order is the first to specifically outlaw references to its parties on social media websites – and is thought to be a direct response to the furore caused by an anonymous Twitter account which this week ‘outed’ many of the celebrities behind a series of superinjunctions.

Socialite Jemima Khan – one of the celebrities named by that account – has denied her involvement in one of the cases, which apparently also involves Top Gear host Jeremy Clarkson.

TV hostess Gabby Logan has also denied being involved in another matter subject to a super-injunction, after being accused of an affair with footballer-turned-BBC-pundit Alan Shearer.

Analyst group Experian Hitwise has said that the media storm surrounding the Twitter user naming the celebrities behind the superinjunctions gave Twitter its busiest ever day in terms of UK traffic on Monday.

Visits to Twitter were up by 14 per cent on Monday, and accounted for 0.5 per cent of all of the UK’s internet traffic, the analysts found.

Read Next:

Comments (10 Comments)

  • Paul Ibbs 13/05/11 #
    Report this comment

    Hasn’t she just been granted an ‘injunction’ and not a ‘super injunction’ as I understand it a ‘super injunction’ means that you could not even report that an injunction had been granted.

    Reply
    • Gavan Reilly 13/05/11 #
      Report this comment

      Paul – our understanding of it is that if it was a mere injunction, we would be allowed to name the woman who secured it but not the specific details of the case, such as where her daughter is being treated. A so-called ‘super injunction’ means that further to this, we can’t name the person who secured it.

      A media outlet can still report that a ‘super-injunction’ has been secured, we just can’t say who’s behind it.

      For example: in the case of a mere injunction, we could stay Mr Joe Bloggs has been granted a court order stopping the publication of a story about him.
      In the case of a ‘super-injunction’, we could only say “A politician/footballer/whatever” has been granted an order, etc etc. (A good example of this kind of story is this one about the Premier League footballer.)

      (Just for posterity, I’m using inverted commas because it’s not their formal legal name.)

    • Paul Ibbs 13/05/11 #
      Report this comment

      I see, thanks Gavan.

    • Gavan Reilly 13/05/11 #
      Report this comment

      I might add that I’ve heard rumours of there being a theoretical THIRD layer of injunctiveness, which apparently even forbid references to the fact that a superinjunction might exist. Which, personally, I find to be nuts.

    • thomas walsh 13/05/11 #
      Report this comment

      That feckin Joe Bloggs, what’ll he get up to next…

  • foggy_lad 13/05/11 #
    Report this comment

    I thought a super injunction meant nobody could report or even refer to the case injunction or any of the associated people involved in any aspect of the case, that’s what should be happening IMHO. The press report and twist stories on slow days blowing everyday things out of all proportion.

    Reply
  • Collie Woods 13/05/11 #
    Report this comment

    These articles seem to suggest that the British courts can impose their law outside of the of their jurisdiction in other countries. Why can’t Irish media just name them all.

    Reply
    • Gavan Reilly 13/05/11 #
      Report this comment

      Collie – because pretty much all Irish media can be accessed and viewed within the United Kingdom, where libel laws are so awful and draconian that any slighted party could take them to the metaphorical cleaners.

      The law, particularly libel law in the UK, is an ass.

  • Collie Woods 13/05/11 #
    Report this comment

    I don’t see how a British court can subject an Irish company to it’s law but anyway.

    Reply
  • Carl Barron 13/05/11 #
    Report this comment

    Do you ever get the feeling that this is just a ‘Test Case’ to see what Governments can get away with?

    What’s next, all content published publicly must be first censored by an approved Government body?

    The beginning of a total freeze and blanket halt to Freedom of Speech considering the content for the excuse of the ban it is very, very suspect to me. Just an opinion you understand, but of course one must ‘NOT’ have an opinion, one must be told.

    Signed Carl Barron
    Chairman of agpcuk

    Reply

Add New Comment