Attorney General may 'take action' if anonymity orders are broken
The Attorney General Dominic Grieve QC has issued a warning to Twitter followers who break anonymised court orders.
Dominic Grieve
Speaking to Radio 4’s Law in Action programme, Grieve said individuals could be prosecuted for breaching court awarded anonymity orders.
He said: “I’ll take action if I think that my intervention is necessary in the public interest, to maintain the rule of law, proportionate and will achieve an end of upholding the rule of law. It’s not something, however, I particularly want to do.”
Last month the Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge said modern technology should not be used to break court ordered injunctions.
He said: “”I’m not giving up on the possibility that people who peddle lies about others through using technology may one day be brought under control, maybe through damages, very substantial damages, maybe even injunctions to stop them peddling lies.”
This came after anonymous Twitter users revealed the identities of individuals who had allegedly secured an injunction.
Hugh Tomlinson QC, of Matrix Chambers, who has represented several high-profile individuals in their bid to gain court ordered privacy, echoed the sentiments of the attorney general.
Speaking to The Lawyer, Tomlinson said: “If the judges get it wrong the Court of Appeal’s there to put it right. If Twitter starts to become the Court of Appeal it would cause severe damage to the administration of justice.”
The Attorney General also said action would be brought against newspapers that give too much information about a subject who has been granted an anonymised order.
In May, Mr Justice Tugendhat turned down an attempt by the woman alleged to have had an affair with former RBS boss Fred Goodwin to have the Daily Mail referred to the Attorney General on the grounds that it breach a court order (27 May 2011).
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (11)
Anonymous | 7-Jun-2011 3:49 pm
Some might say that these injunctions themselves are causing "severe damage to the administration of justice". The law should not be used to protect morally repugnant celebrities from facing the consequences of their actions.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rural bliss | 7-Jun-2011 3:53 pm
I'm still puzzled as to how a Twit can be prosecuted for contempt when they have not been served with the injunction, and cannot even be proved to know that it definitely exists or what its terms are.
Furthermore, unless the applicant's name is actually known how can any Twit know for a fact that what they are tweeting is in fact in breach of an injunction and not just idle gossip?
The standard of proof for contempt is the criminal standard, and I don't see how it could be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Twit actually (a) knew for a fact that there was an injunction covering his tweet; and (2) that he definitely knew the name of the applicant.
Grieve is just pi**ing in the wind, and he knows it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7-Jun-2011 4:58 pm
Judges have not learned the SpyCatcher lesson that you cannot prevent free speech by granting injunctions. It is blowing in the wind and the judicial system ends up appearing to be ineffectual and out of step.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Flood | 7-Jun-2011 6:05 pm
Most people who tweet won't have a clue about the administration of justice, judges, or courts, and especially AGs. Maybe someone will receive a fine or a slap on the wrist, but what the hell... It will be easy to tweet through TOR or a VPN.
Are ASBOs effective? Have people stopped downloading music in breach of copyright? Do people cross streets on red lights?
This one is lost and lost and lost..... Hopeless....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 8-Jun-2011 8:17 am
Also note the "peddling lies" line: none of the recent cases involved libel. Like the suggestion of issuing injunctions to stop people breaching injunctions, though...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Tom Fletcher | 8-Jun-2011 9:47 am
There's a great irony in the above posters, all of whom decry the law not catching up with technology, but hiding their opinions behind the internet safety net of being anonymous or using a made up name.
The increased use of social media online raises moral and ethical questions about free speech. Freedom of expression is an important value to have, but doing so from behind an anonymous cloak is cowardly. If people are willing to say what they think online, they should be willing to be public with who they are and stand up for what they are saying, rather than hide behind a number of non-identifiable usernames, or worse, anonymous.
People bang on about free speech, but do not truly believe in it. How many times have users posted views than many find abhorrent, or defamatory? Should they be allowed to express them without any consequence? Just because we can, doesn't always mean we should.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous and proud of it | 8-Jun-2011 2:49 pm
“I’m not giving up on the possibility that people who peddle lies about others through using technology may one day be brought under control"
I don't believe for a second that the LCJ has failed to appreciate the difference between defamation and revealing the truth.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Smith | 8-Jun-2011 4:51 pm
'Tom Fletcher'? Now there's a made up name if ever I heard one!
At least I've the courage to use my real name.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Jun-2011 4:06 pm
....and me
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Spartacus | 22-Jun-2011 7:21 am
Et moi aussi
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment