BY JAMES SIMONS-
Confusion in the UK legal system over the celeb three some ban imposed by The Supreme Court is bad for the legal profession.
There seems to be some confusion in the legal system on the rights of the press on kiss and tell stories.
After three appeal court judges ruled last April that an injunction barring The Sun on Sunday from naming him be lifted, their decision was eventually overruled by the High Court. A panel of five Supreme Court judges overturned that decision by a four to one majority. One justice claimed there was ”no public interest in publishing ”kiss and tell” stories simply because because people were well known. Legal experts say the ruling will have implications. The man had sued News Group Newspapers which publishes The Sun on Sunday, claiming that publication of information about alleged extramarital activity would be misuse of private information and a breach of confidence.
It is both strange and interesting that the lower courts and the Supreme Courts can differ so widely on matters as serious and important as the press rights and restrictions on publishing the private details of a celebrity’s life. The lower courts are legal experts in the same way as the Supreme Courts, even though the latter have more power. It therefore raises the issue of the disadvantage of less well off celebrities who may not have been able to afford the extra expenses of taking the case further to the Supreme Court.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
My personal view is that celebrities who cheat on their partners or are involved in extramarital sexual encounters should be entitled to a right to privacy, but the reality is that the right to freedom of speech simply means that public figures unfortunately have surrendered their right to privacy once they courted public life since they know that any actions deemed wrong or immoral can be published by the press. The Supreme court appear to be in error in their recent ruling, and the fact different judges have come to very different conclusions on this matter shows that it is simply a value judgment and matter of opinion how people even in the legal field judge a case like this.
The more convincing argument is that the press should have been afforded the right to publish the story, in the same way it has in past times been ruled in their favor to publish other salacious stories involving details about the people’s private lives of celebrities. There is certainly confusion over the way the legal system works in this respect, as there seems to be an absence of a uniform policy on this to the discredit of the legal profession.
Sun on Sunday editors won the first round of the fight over identity in January, when a High Court judge refused to impose an injunction barring publication. But the Supreme Court sidelined the judgment of the High Court, who in context, ‘got it wrong’ in their ruling.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
The Sun on Sunday Editors had told Lord Justice Jackson, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Simon at a Court of Appeal hearing in London in April that the ban should go because the man had been named in articles abroad – outside the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales. They said “the story” had been published in an American magazine and the man’s name could be found on the Internet. However, five justices in the Supreme Court disagreed, with Lord Toulson, the only one in the minority was prepared to discharge the injunction.
The collective judgment of the majority of justices was outlined by Lord Mance in a written ruling, and stated:
“Publication of the story would infringe privacy rights of PJS, his partner and their children,” said Lord Mance.
“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.
“It is different if the story has some bearing on the performance of a public office or the correction of a misleading public impression cultivated by the person involved … that does not apply here.”
He went on: “As to public availability, it is true that the story has been accessible on the internet and social media, but, if the injunction were to be lifted, there would be intensive coverage of the story by The Sun on Sunday (and, there is little doubt, by other newspapers), as well as unrestricted internet and social media coverage, all of which would constitute additional and potentially more enduring invasions of the privacy of PJS, his partner and their children …
“If publication were permitted now it would be likely to deprive a trial of any real purpose, since all privacy would by then have been destroyed. Damages after the event, whatever their measure, would be unlikely to give any real consolation or redress to any of those involved.”
Disappointed
Bob Satchwell, executive director of the Society of Editors, said the Supreme Court decision was “disappointing”.
“This is not just about the private lives of celebrities, it is about principles and practicalities. It is wrong that people in England and Wales cannot read in the media of their choice whatever everyone else in the world knows already,” he said.
“In practical terms, as Lord Justice Jackson said in the appeal court, the court should not make orders which are ineffective.” This is very correct and logical because if the knowledge is known abroad, and can be found on the internet, there doesn’t seem to be a good reason why publication of the story should be allowed here.
Mr Satchwell added: “Apart from bringing the courts and the law into disrepute, injunctions are an expensive waste of rich people’s money and of the courts’ time. The courts are overwhelmed with other important work and today’s judgment may well encourage greater use of injunctions.
“Only lawyers benefit and one of these days really important issues may well remain hidden because of spurious claims for privacy and the protection of children.”
He went on: “Everyone has a right to privacy but if we are about to become involved in activity that would be embarrassing if revealed to the public, we should perhaps think twice before indulging in it in the first place.”
Distinguished MP, John Hemmings said “Obviously the Government is in a position to pass legislation to free up speech in the UK. That is what needs to happen,” said f ormer Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming.
“Such a constraint on freedom of speech is something that the House of Lords Judicial Committee of the last millennium would not have supported. I am surprised that the Supreme Court does.”
He added: “Clearly the Supreme Court have not learnt from the lesson of King Canute – that there are realities that it is not practical to resist.”
IMPORTANT
But lawyer Dominic Crossley, who specializes in media and privacy issues and is a partner at law firm Payne Hicks Beach, took a different view.
“This is an important moment for the law of privacy in the UK,” he said.
“Privacy is a right that we all value, every day, but it is meaningless unless we are able to enforce that right in court.
“The Supreme Court decided that there was no public interest in the disclosure of this sexual encounter and that the injunction still serves a useful purpose.
“Importantly, it recognises the essential difference in intrusiveness and distress between a sensationalist newspaper publication when compared to internet or social media comment.
“Publication by The Sun on Sunday would have been a serious and damaging breach of the rights of PJS and family members and the Supreme Court is to be commended for preventing that breach.
“The Sun on Sunday and other tabloids hoped that this case would mark the death knell for the privacy injunctions; in fact it has given them new life.
“PJS should be admired for their tenacity.” Actually, PJS should be criticized for the confusion in their laws that allow rulings to be made based on their personal opinions instead of on consistent and coherent legal principles.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar