Are injunctions super?

The news that BBC presenter Andrew Marr has taken out a super injunction in the press, has had many claiming he is asking for double standards having made a career about reporting on other people’s private lives.

Having been a journalist for 30 years, Marr who hosts the Andrew Marr show on the BBC revealed that he sought the super injunction for the protection of his family.

To really understand this, and its implications it’s essential to understand the difference between a regular injunction and a super injunction.

Quite simply in the case of a super injunction, it can’t be reported that the injunction has even been taken out or any other facts about the potential story; it is effectively a gagging order. A super injunction is the closest thing someone can get to a total lockdown.

Courts have stressed since this story became headline news, that they are used very rarely and have underlined the importance for open justice.

A ‘regular’ injunction usually lasts until any trial for breach of privacy, although a full injunction can be obtained pre-trial if the person in question can provide enough evidence that they will win the trial.

It has certainly caused many waves amongst journalists, who believe that this is a bar to freedom of speech and more importantly freedom of the press.

The question now is; with more super injunctions surfacing, is there actually a freedom of the press anymore?

It’s hard to say, but equally would super-injunctions exist if the press acted a little more responsibly? 

Newspapers print sales have been predicted to slump with the digital boom and online news resources available, could publishing some of these stories exclusively in print-based newspapers get them flying off the shelves again?

The problem here is that the press has been caught out numerous times in the past, gaining sensational headlines and stories but at the expense of their targets whether celebrities or even businesses.

Lest we forget the now defunct Sunday Sport sneaking into a hospital to photograph ‘Allo ‘Allo star Gordon Kaye, after he had brain surgery following a car crash.

Kaye was furious and took the Sport to the Court of Appeal, but his demand for a law of privacy was never approved.

In 2000 the Labour Government passed on two contradictory Human Rights into UK law through the Convention of Human Rights – the right to private and family life under article eight, but also the freedom of expression under article 10 – which allows the press to publish.

With freedom of expression for the press comes responsibility, but with injunctions ready to shoot down their next great story, does action need to be taken to ensure the press is allowed to go about their business – if done in a evidence based / responsible manner!.

In this case the story can only be published if it is deemed to be in the interest of the public, for example a married celebrity having an affair or taking illegal drugs.

Are super injunctions also to do with a person’s standing in society, does an England footballer or TV celebrity attract special treatment over the regular business owner who has been caught having an affair.

Again it’s hard to say, as both John Terry and Ashley Cole had requested for super injunctions turned down, and suffice to say their scandals were two of the biggest celebrity headlines of recent years.

A meeting has been arranged by the Master of Rolls, Lord Neuberger in May, to report on super injunctions, with the results set to benefit either the press or the rich and famous.