%20(2).png)
As much as our social media feeds have been crammed full of Brexit results and future possibilities, we will push all that aside for a minute to focus on Article 8 of the ECHR, that being the right to respect for private and family life. More specifically this blog piece will focus on the grey area of celebrity injunctions, since the infamous PJS case that has made waves in the legal arena on injunctions themselves. We have a previous post written by editor, Charles on the PJS case in relation to the right to a fair trial, which you can also read up on here!
Injunctions, stripped to their bare core, are legal formalities used by individuals that prevent others from doing a specific action, often used as a type of remedy. Usually, these are used when there is a threatening action or more often than not when someone is invading a legal right of someone else. Today, the world is intrigued with the rich and the famous, and obsessed with the royals; media outlets provide the bottomless pit of information on celebrities, pumping out articles on what they ate for lunch and who they saw them with. Anything that would negate their creditability or impact their outward persona could be met with their right to privacy and application for an injunction, which would force media outlets to halt all articles on said person. Enter defamation law. Fortunately for them, these elites are armed with funds, lawyers and an ambition to protect their good name.
Court cases emerge, in which injunctions are requested, but the outcome itself depends on the amount of interference determined by judges. What is important to note is that the UK does not have any privacy laws, per se, but there is some jurisdiction under Article 8, and along with other areas of law that fill the missing pieces of what would be deemed privacy law. When it comes to injunctions, whose identities are allowed to be protected from the public? Well, unfortunately not the average person – rather usually someone who will ultimately suffer public prosecution and backlash, those being like earlier mentioned the rich and famous. When situations like this arise, a balance needs to be struck; the classic example is the article 8 right of the individual and that of article 10; freedom of expression, or rather freedom of the press. It is important to note that one does not trump the other; there is no favouring of one specific right.
Checks and balances tests are utilised for judges to determine what a just and fair outcome of the case is this, and this is importantly determined on a case-by-case basis. Those who wish to invoke an injunction do not always succeed, looking towards the previous winners and losers of the injunction game.In 2010, regarding the English Footballer John Terry the Court removed the injunction that was originally emplaced, letting the media floodgates open on the affair that Mr Terry had between an ex-girlfriend of his team-mate. The judge, in this case, stated that injunction itself was not necessary or proportionate in relation to the amount of interference it had on this individual's private life. UKSC commented that in recent years injunctions or anonymity orders were granted without the slightest justification. It provided a precedent that injunctions, at times, may be lifted or can even limit the amount of power they have.
In 2011 Ryan Giggs successfully obtained an injunction order to conceal the relationship he was having with a reality star. However, the downfall to this was that there was much speculation of the relationship over Twitter and even in Parliament. As a result, the Court found that anonymity no longer applied. In essence, if everyone knows your secret, seeking an injunction will render your efforts useless.The case of PJS is the first injunction to reach the Court of Appeal in five years, regarding an extra-marital ‘threesome’, where the Court decided that the interests of PJS overrode that of the media outlet that wanted to report on the story. Lady Hale took into account the effect that lifting the injunction would have on the young children of the couple involved, with the Court concluded a 4-1 majority in favour of the injunction remaining emplace.The ruling in PJS has said to create privacy laws. It is far too easy for public figures to use an injunction as a tool to control what is being published about their private lives. However injunctions apply only to England and Wales – other organisations can report on a story without fear of reprimand like they do here in England.
The world of the rich and famous will always have a plan B thanks to injunctions, even though it is not guaranteed outright. The fact of the matter is that injunctions are expensive, costing hundreds of thousands of pounds; such a fee is not feasible to the average individual. The stakes are high when seeking an injunction: not only is your reputation in jeopardy but also the amount of time, money and effort, which it could still result in failure. The real question is why we even have a system emplace that offers individuals who make bad decisions protection from criticism when these individuals are seen as role models to the general population. The world of injunctions leaves a very bitter taste in the mouth; the need for privacy rights are clear, but injunctions allow far too much leeway to the fortunate on previous poor decisions, and to restrict freedom of the press to criticise these decisions seems wrong.