Original injunction correctly granted, but harm has already occurred
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear argument this week on whether the “celebrity threesome” injunction should be lifted. Ruling in PJS v News Group (celebrity injunction) [2016] EWCA Civ 393 this week, Lord Justice Jackson, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Simon extended the ban on publication by two days to allow the celebrity’s lawyers, Carter-Ruck, time to lodge an application to the Supreme Court.
The injunction was granted to stop the Sun on Sunday publishing a story about a “three-way sexual encounter” between the claimant, PJS, who is married with two children, and two others, AB and CD. The story has been published online, overseas and in Scotland and Ireland.
Jackson LJ said the starting point for the court was that the original injunction was correctly granted. However, he set out seven reasons why PJS was unlikely to obtain a permanent injunction, including that knowledge of the story was now so widespread that “confidentiality has probably been lost”; much of the harm the injunction was intended to prevent had already occurred; whether or not an injunction was granted, it was “inevitable that the two children will in due course learn about these matters”; and the court “should not make orders which are ineffective”.
Amber Melville-Brown, head of Withers’ media & reputation team, says: “Now we can all lawfully revel in the ins and outs of the private sexual life of a celebrity and his partner, while they must endure having their private lives firmly on parade.
“But in fact, we can’t, because reporting restrictions remain while the case goes even higher up the court echelons, on appeal.
“If this case is about a threesome, it is about: first, how to deal with porous national borders vis a vis internet publications; second, the impact of a potentially fatal blow on a major protection for the people versus the press; and finally, the extent to which our courts can operate when the public on social media and elements of the press disrespect the letter and the spirit of the law and, via their publications, effectively tell our judiciary that they don’t give a fig about their considered decisions, under the guise of free speech.”
