Neuberger report says media should get prior warning of injunctions
Newspapers should be given advance warning of injunction applications but there should be no fast track appeal system to challenge their existence, the Master of the Rolls (MR) Lord Neuberger has concluded.
Lord Neuberger
The MR launched his high-level review into super-injunctions in April last year in the wake of a growing public perception that they were being abused.
The report, Super-Injunctions, Anonymised Injunctions and Open Justice, is aimed at clarifying the judicial position on super-injunctions.
It reveals that only two super-injunctions - legal orders that bar individuals from publicising or informing others of their existence - have been granted since the John Terry case in January last year.
Such injunctions, the MR says, should only be granted when it is “absolutely necessary” and should be regularly reviewed by the court.
The report states: “As they incorporate derogations from the principle of open justice, super-injunctions and anonymised injunctions can only be granted when they’re strictly necessary. They cannot be granted so as to become in practice permanent.”
New practice guidelines will be issued clarifying the procedure for applying for an interim injunction, which will be renamed ‘interim non-disclosure orders’.
Consideration should also be given to a data collection system for all non-disclosure orders and the data should be published annually.
Parliamentarians should be better informed about the existence of such court orders to help them avoid breaking court orders, but, according to the MR, parliamentary privilege “is an absolute privilege and is of the highest constitutional importance”.
However, the MR stops short of wading into the row over the Human Rights Act, stating that it would have been “inappropriate” for the committee to have considered substantive law reform, stressing that that is a matter for parliament.
Lawyers have welcomed the report saying it adds balance to the roaring debate over injunctions.
Lewis Silkin head of defamation Rod Dadak said: “Lord Neuberger’s proposal is necessary and pragmatic and should go some way in pacifying the media. His recommendations reflect society’s concerns over secrecy in relation to justice and an increasingly proactive judiciary who are anxious to be seen to be acting fairly.”
Readers' comments (4)
Anonymous | 20-May-2011 5:13 pm
I couldn't give a damn about which footballer / actor / actress / B, C, D or E-Grade Celebrity is or isn't doing something to someone else that they ought not to be, but what else might be being covered up that IS in the public interest???
I believe that Super-injunctions are an absolute abuse of status and money and should be legislated out of existence. Similarly, the "right" of someone to be informed of a possible controversial media story about them is also beyond the realm of logic.
If all else fails, turn to the courts .... or as one of my lecturers said to us many years ago ...."Never do, act, say or write anything you may later have to preface with the words 'Your Honour'".
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20-May-2011 10:40 pm
Is it possible that a member of the judiciary could be held in contempt of the HoC when they criticise members for mentioning the subjects of such injunctions AND wasn't it Schillings who warned MP's not to discuss thier client in the HoC
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ashley Balls | 23-May-2011 4:54 am
Wouldn't it be be wonderful if for once the Judiciary, the legal profession, the media and the great British public (of which I am one) finally understood the power of social media. Those of us with IP addresses outside UK can blather on to our heart's content about who does what to whom in the UK with little or no practical (or legal) consequence. To leave matters as they are is an abuse of process and plain dumb. However according to the BBC to date there have only been 2 applications for this type of injunction. Yes, we should all be outraged that anyone (famous or infamous) should seek such protection but thankfully there does not appear to have been an outbreak of legal 'interference'.Anyway there is no substitute for gossip at the watercooler and who was it who said to be told something in confience means that you can only tell one other person at a time!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 26-May-2011 5:14 pm
Ashley Balls' comment surely misses an important point. As a member of the great British public, the law requires him to respect the private and family life of everyone. What are the limits which that respect involves? Should that law be observed, never mind enforced? Should it be changed? Should the law require some people's private and family life to be respected and not others'? Or no one's? These are genuinely difficult questions, and it is to be hoped that one day they can be sorted out in a calmer atmosphere.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment