FOUR CANUTES OF BRITISH JUSTICE Supreme Court judges ban naming of threesome star
SUPREME Court judges yesterday declared that people in England and Wales have no right to know about the sex lives of celebrities.
They banned publication of the names of a married man in the entertainment business who engaged in a sexual threesome, and that of his partner, in a landmark ruling that threatens to open the gates to a flood of gagging writs for the rich and famous.
The married couple’s identity will be hidden even though millions worldwide have read about the man’s infidelity, including in the US and Scotland, and millions in England know the names. Yesterday the couple’s identity was available to even the most cursory internet search.
But in a ruling described by MPs as ‘a cheat’s charter’, the Supreme Court justices said it was important to keep the couple’s names out of English newspapers to protect their privacy and that of their children.
Critics said that having children may now be used as a shield against unwelcome publicity by those wealthy enough to afford lawyers. However, the Supreme Court judges censored three vital paragraphs of their own reasoning – because the information might have helped identify the parents.
In a key section by the court’s Deputy President, Lady Hale, on the reasons for protecting the children, paragraphs 75, 76 and 77 are shown as ‘redacted’.
This means the public cannot fully understand a judicial decision of major constitutional importance.
Lord Mance, the Supreme Court justice who gave the leading judgment, cited the Daily Mail’s front page in April headed ‘why the law is an ass’ in which the paper reported that the celebrities had been named by a large-circulation US publication.
The judge said: ‘ The court is well aware of the lesson which King Canute gave his courtiers. Unlike Canute, the court can take steps to enforce its injunction. As to the Mail Online’s portrayal of the law as an ass, if that is the price of applying the law, it is one which must be paid.’
Under the ruling the injunction is only an ‘interim’ order which can be set aside when the celebrity couple’s case comes to a full High Court hearing.
But the Supreme Court judgment must guide lower courts, so it is now extremely unlikely that a British judge will lift it.
The ruling marks the latest fight in a four-month legal battle that began when one of the lovers of the married man went to The Sun newspaper to tell the story of the threesome.
Last month Appeal Court judges said the injunction that shielded them should be lifted because of the importance of protecting freedom of expression and because they should not use their children as a ‘trump card’ against public exposure.
However the celebrities – who by marrying took a public and legal vow of monogamy – remained known only as PJS and YMA, and the lover as AB, pending the Supreme Court verdict.
Yesterday’s four-to-one decision – in which Court President Lord Neuberger, Deputy President Lady Hale, and Lord Reed backed the privacy rights of PJS – revives the privacy gagging writ and cements it into English law.
In theory it means anyone who tells someone the name of a celebrity who is shielded by a privacy injunction can go to prison for contempt of court.
The ruling provoked outrage among MPs. Former MP and free speech campaigner John Hemming said: ‘If you have a gossipy conversation, you need a judge to vet it.’
Tory MP Alec Shelbrooke called it a ‘cheater’s charter’ and said: ‘It is making a mockery of the legal system. This is just someone who got too randy and doesn’t want people to know.’
And Anthony Hudson QC, of Matrix Chambers, last night told the Daily Telegraph: ‘There is no doubt we now have a full-on privacy law. This is a significant step in the privacy landscape.
‘It’s a terribly retrograde step which makes English judges look insular. It seemed as though we had made significant progress since the bad days of the super-injunction but this has put the clock back completely.’ Comment – Page 14 Mac’s view – Page 19
‘Mockery of the legal system’