The Supreme Court has extended the controversial “celebrity injunction” concerning an extra-marital threesome.
Giving the leading judgment in PSJ v News Group Newspapers [2016] UKSC 26, Lord Mance said publication would infringe the privacy rights of PJS, his partner and their children. He said: “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. But... that does not apply here.”
Mance referred to the Independent Press Standards Code, which requires editors to demonstrate exceptional public interest to override the “normally paramount interests of the children”. Lifting the injunction would lead to a “media storm”, he said. “This would be likely to add greatly and on a potentially enduring basis to the intrusiveness and distress felt by the appellant, his partner and, by way of increased media attention now and/or in the future, their children.”
“There is not, on its own, any public interest in the legal sense in the disclosure of private sexual encounters even if they involve infidelity or more than one person at the same time, however famous the individual(s) involved.”
Lord Toulson gave a dissenting opinion on the basis the information is already widely known.
However, Amber Melville-Brown, head of Withers' media & reputation team, said: “Privacy injunctions aren't dead and the obituaries are premature.
“The Supreme Court would have been damned if it did and damned if it didn't. Had it overturned the injunction it would have been criticised for condoning that pressure from the press, foreign publications and some social media should weigh more in the balance than a properly considered judicial view. Those of us who look to the courts to protect our rights would rightly have been up in arms.
“Upholding the injunction will result in much media moaning that the law is an ass in protecting private information which many people already know and, no doubt, a petition to the European Courts. But that is infinitely preferable to forcing our courts to lower their standards and cow-tow to the wishes of those who have little respect for our law.
“The unpalatable but important lesson for Transatlantic celebrities is that the Internet has changed the media landscape, turning them at once into worldwide stars, but casting them under severe scrutiny by the invasive and salacious tabloid press on these shores.”
PSJ is married to YMA and the couple have two young children. Between 2009 and 2011, PSJ had a sexual relationship with AB and, on one occasion, CD. The Sun on Sunday told PSJ that they planned to publish AB’s account of the relationship, leading PSJ to claim his would breach his rights to privacy and confidentiality, protected by Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He secured an interim injunction.
However, details of the tryst were published in the US, Canada and Scotland. Publication was restricted to print copies and online stories were “geo-blocked” so readers in England and Wales could not easily access those sites.
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=16d9dd3d_1)
