'Super-injunctions should not be permanent'

Super-injunctions and other anonymised injunctions "can only be granted when they are strictly necessary" and cannot be granted so as to become, in practice, permanent, according to a report by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger.

Where super-injunctions and anonymised injunctions are granted they should be kept under review by the court, the report said.

It has also recommended the media should be informed in advance about applications for injunctions and so-called super-injunctions.

Lord Neuberger's report said super-injunctions were now being granted for "short periods" and only where "secrecy is necessary".

The Telegraph notes: "There is no mention in the report of the impact of Twitter or the internet on the enforcement of court orders, but the lord chief justice, Lord Judge, said readers placed greater trust in the content of traditional media than those "who peddle lies" on websites.

Lord Judge said he believed that ways would be found to curtail the "misuse of modern technology, in the same way that those involved with online child pornography were pursued by the police.

"Are you really going to say that someone who has a true claim for protection perfectly well made has to be at the mercy of modern technology?" he asked.

The report also says that media reports of comments made in parliament which set out to contravene injunctions may be in contempt of court.

Downing Street said the government would consider the report carefully.

FT: 'Footballer wants search order on journalists'

In a new twist in the saga of privacy injunctions, a footballer has asked the High Court for an order to search e-mails and text messages of journalists at the Sun and News of the World publisher News Group Newspapers, the Financial Times reports today.

The FT says the move is an unprecedented effort to see whether the journalists breached the terms of a so-called super-injunction concerning the footballer's alleged affair with a reality TV star.

The paper says: "The application, which the court has not yet ruled on, is likely to send a chill through media organisations at a time of intense debate over privacy law and the efficacy of super-injunctions."

Hugh Tomlinson QC, acting for the footballer who allegedly had an affair with Imogen Thomas, told the High Court that his disclosure application followed comments made by Sun columnist and former editor Kelvin MacKenzie on the BBC’s Today programme.

The FT reports: "MacKenzie had told the programme he was flooded by e-mails from readers asking who had secured injunctions against the newspaper. 'Sometimes I give [the names], sometimes I don’t.' he added.' He is there telling the world that he ... breaks court orders whenever he feels like it,' Mr Tomlinson told Mr Justice Eady."

MacKenzie later told the FT that all he was passing on was gossip not based on any knowledge of super-injunction applications. “It’s a matter of relaying journalistic gossip and nothing is going to stop me doing that,” he said.

Social media speculation puts pressure on judges to lift Sir Fred Goodwin's super-injunction

Judges are facing growing pressure to lift the super-injunction obtained by Sir Fred Goodwin amid speculation on the internet about the nature of the information he is trying to protect, claims the Daily Telegraph today.

The existence of the injunction was revealed under parliamentary priviledge on Thursday by John Hemming, the back-bench Liberal Democrat MP, during a business debate in the House of Commons.

The Telegraph says: "The terms of the injunction are so strict that the Telegraph is prevented from disclosing any details, but social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook were rife with speculation about why the former Royal Bank of Scotland chief executive had taken out the injunction."

Padraig Reidy, of Index on Censorship, tells the Telegraph: “The laws on injunctions and super-injunctions are stuck in the past and really do not take into account the speed and the way people communicate on the internet today.

“It is nigh on impossible once something has broken on social networking sites to put the cat back in the bag. On the internet there is a real sense of a right to information.”

Hemming told Parliament that the super-injunction even prevented Sir Fred from being identified as a banker and asked: “Will the Government have a debate or a statement on freedom of speech and whether there’s one rule for the rich like Fred Goodwin and one rule for the poor?”

The Telegraph says in a leader comment today: "Sir Fred “the Shred” Goodwin, who presided over the near-collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland, retired on an annual pension of £342,000 and also received a lump sum of almost £3 million. We have no idea whether he used any of this cash for legal fees to obtain a secret super-injunction banning the publication of information about him. But if it did cost him a lot of money, he must be regretting it. For, although the court granted Sir Fred’s wish, this week a Liberal Democrat MP revealed in Parliament one of the things the injunction was supposed to conceal: the very fact of its existence.

"Given their extreme nature and the public controversy that they engender, super-injunctions do not seem to be particularly hard to obtain. Over the past few years, British courts have been strangely eager to grant these gagging orders, whose basis lies in human rights legislation inspired by Europe. It is hard to avoid the view that judges are forging a privacy law on the hoof.

"Fortunately, there is one thing that trumps the “human right” to silence a free press, and that is the legal privilege of MPs to say anything they like in Parliament, which dates back to the Civil War. Secret super-injunctions are, in theory, extremely powerful instruments – but, thanks to that ancient freedom, this particular one lies in shreds."