Farce of celebrity gag order
Names of sports star and famous lover all over the internet in mockery of law
AN injunction banning a newspaper from naming a sportsman and a celebrity who had an alleged affair was branded a farce yesterday after the duo were unmasked across social networking websites.
The ‘ successful professional’ sportsman took out the draconian gagging order to prevent the woman running a ‘kiss and tell’ story about their relationship.
Even the female star involved, named as X in court papers, openly challenged the order when she posted a photo of herself reading a newspaper report about the injunction.
The image, posted on Instagram where she has more than 500,000 followers, attracted over 150 comments and was ‘liked’ 2,000 times by fans before it was removed.
Legal experts said the injunction, taken out by the sportsman, made ‘a mockery of the courts’ because he has already been widely named on the internet.
Indeed, the order was the subject of numerous conversations online as internet users openly discussed the pair on chatroom forums.
The case is reminiscent of that of footballer Ryan Giggs, who took out an injunction to prevent reality TV star Imogen Thomas speaking out about their affair.
The former Manchester United player spent at least £150,000 on lawyers to try to keep his relationship secret even though tens of thousands of people had posted his name on Twitter and other internet sites.
He was eventually named in 2011 in Parliament by former Lib Dem MP John Hemming, who used Parliamentary privilege to break the order.
On Saturday, Mrs Justice Elisabeth Laing granted a temporary court order against The Sun on Sunday, which wanted to run a story about the unnamed sports star based on an account by the celebrity X.
It followed an urgent tele-
‘Can’t put genie back in bottle’
phone application made by lawyers on behalf of the sportsman and his wife, referred to as A1 and A2 by the courts.
It is claimed that A1 effectively ‘ two- timed’ his wife before they married by having a clandestine affair with X.
Yesterday social media sites were awash with the names of the two celebrities, with some claiming ‘everybody’ knew who the injunction referred to and it was a waste of money.
Others tweeted the sportsman directly to mock him.
Media lawyer Mark Stephens, of Howard Kennedy Solicitors, said: ‘ The courts seem overready to grant injunctions. They need to ask themselves first how widely available the names of those involved is and whether the public could find out the information themselves.
‘In the case of Ryan Giggs, everyone including the Down- ing Street cat knew it was him because it was all over Twitter and yet the court order remained in place.
‘In this case, the information also appears to be quite widely available. Judges must be practical about this or it makes a mockery of the courts. They must understand when the genie cannot be put back into the bottle.’
In granting a temporary injunction, Mrs Justice Laing described the female celebrity in unflattering terms.
She said in a judgment: ‘ Evidence is adduced to suggest that X is a shallow, onedimensional, cut-out character who broadcasts, and is known to broadcast, her entire private life, so that anyone embarking on a relationship with her knowingly takes the risk that it will be made public.’
She added: ‘A1 is a prominent and successful professional sportsman who has from time to time held positions of responsibility in his sport. He is now married to A2.
‘He seeks to restrain a national newspaper from publishing a story, to be recounted by X, about a sexual relationship between them.
‘It is common ground that the relationship was some years ago and lasted a few months. At the time of this relationship he was not married to A2, but she had been his girlfriend for a while.’
The female celebrity claims she ‘spent a considerable time together’ with the sportsman, and she hoped things between them ‘could go further’.
Even when X realised the sportsman was in a long-term relationship, she hoped ‘ we had a chance of building something together’.
She claimed she had been hurt and wanted to ‘put the record straight’, saying her sportsman lover was a ‘hypocrite’.
The judge said it was ‘not for me to moralise about such conduct’ but said an advertising campaign involving the sportsman did give the impression that he was ‘a clean-living family man’.
The temporary order was granted pending a more detailed hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice.
Comment – Page 16