|
 The ruling means media in England and Wales remain banned
from naming the people involved, even though their names have
been widely reported on the internet since a U.S. magazine
published the full story on April 6.
In a four-to-one majority ruling, the Supreme Court held that
the story was not in the public interest and publication of the
names would be a serious breach of privacy.
The court said that even though the story was easily accessible
on the internet and social media, for it to be splashed all over
the English papers would lead to "potentially more enduring
invasions" of privacy.
The ruling will anger London-based tabloid newspapers which had
argued the injunction was absurd when the details were easily
available on the internet.
The case has stirred a wider debate in Britain about whether
injunctions, court orders banning publication of private
information, serve any purpose in the internet age.
The person at the heart of the story is in the entertainment
industry and married to a person in the same business. The
couple have two children, who would also be at risk of an
invasion of their privacy, the court said.
The couple testified to the lower court that originally granted
the injunction that theirs was an open relationship in which
extra-marital flings were acceptable and did not call into
question their commitment to each other and their children.
The Sun on Sunday, the tabloid newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch
which bought the story from the other participants in the
threesome, argued it was in the public interest because it
exposed the couple's public image of marital commitment as
hypocritical.
[to top of second column] |
"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," said Supreme Court judge Lord Mance,
reading a summary of the ruling.
"The courts exist to protect legal rights, even when their
protection is difficult or unpopular in some quarters," wrote
Supreme Court President Lord Neuberger.
"If parliament takes the view that the courts have not adapted the
law to fit current realities, then, of course, it can change the
law."
The injunction was issued by a lower court on Jan. 22. After the
U.S. magazine article in April, The Sun on Sunday went back to court
arguing the injunction no longer made sense.
Thursday's Supreme Court ruling means the interim injunction will
remain in place until a full trial to decide whether it should
become permanent or be lifted.
(Reporting by Estelle Shirbon; Editing by Janet Lawrence)
[© 2016 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2016 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 |
