Footballers super-injunction

[Shaggy]

Apparently in relation to a multi million pound fraud that occurred a couple of summers back.

He, by all accounts, convinced some middle eastern chaps to part with £12m in return for his 'footballing' services.

[Alex]

I dont get the Twitter thing. I mean, does the Super Injunction apply to Everyone in the country or just the media? How do you define its parameters. How can Joe Globs on the street be in trouble if he has only heard about Super Injunctions through the paper. Madness

[Exiled_red]

I dont get the Twitter thing. I mean, does the Super Injunction apply to Everyone in the country or just the media? How do you define its parameters. How can Joe Globs on the street be in trouble if he has only heard about Super Injunctions through the paper. Madness

This is the problem isn't it? I suspect that he wants to go through twitter to find the person who broke it, to see if it was a journalist. If it was a jounalist I guess they could be in trouble because they would presumably be aware of the terms of the injunction and presumably bound by it.

It would be interesting to know the rules of these injunctions for the press, presumably the papers are banned from mentioning the player and Imogen Thomas or injunction in the same article, but how far do the rules go? Could they report the story as the main article on a 2 page spread then have some nothing article about the player next to it?

I think the rules for these injunctions are being made up as they go along.

[Fivex]

Apparently in relation to a multi million pound fraud that occurred a couple of summers back.

He, by all accounts, convinced some middle eastern chaps to part with £12m in return for his 'footballing' services.

[dom9]

This is the problem isn't it? I suspect that he wants to go through twitter to find the person who broke it, to see if it was a journalist. If it was a jounalist I guess they could be in trouble because they would presumably be aware of the terms of the injunction and presumably bound by it.

It would be interesting to know the rules of these injunctions for the press, presumably the papers are banned from mentioning the player and Imogen Thomas or injunction in the same article, but how far do the rules go? Could they report the story as the main article on a 2 page spread then have some nothing article about the player next to it?

I think the rules for these injunctions are being made up as they go along.

They apply to everyone regardless of whether you are a journalist.

Basically you can not pubicly name the subject of a gagging order. You can't write about it in a newspaper or on the internet. You can't do it on tv or radio. In the UK or named territory.

[TheStig]

They apply to everyone regardless of whether you are a journalist.

Basically you can not pubicly name the subject of a gagging order. You can't write about it in a newspaper or on the internet. You can't do it on tv or radio. In the UK or named territory.

What about the Scot's who are claiming that the injunction only applies to England and not Scotland. That's got to be on pretty thin ground surely!

[Alex]

They apply to everyone regardless of whether you are a journalist.

Basically you can not pubicly name the subject of a gagging order. You can't write about it in a newspaper or on the internet. You can't do it on tv or radio. In the UK or named territory.

Unless they send these legal documents to people, I don't see how the courts can claim people know the contents of the ruling. I was on the understanding that these Injunctions were for the papers and media not to report. Does not stop people on the street discussing does it?

[truefan999]

What about the Scot's who are claiming that the injunction only applies to England and not Scotland. That's got to be on pretty thin ground surely!

Nope. Scotland has a different legal system. Injunctions only apply to England and Wales. He needed to get another for Scotland. He didn't.

The attorney-general is not even considering asking for an investigation into the Herald.

As for injunctions here. It is a tricky one. They are usually served upon and notified to traditional media (tv, radio and newspapers) so only they have notice of them. It is in fact a grey area whether the man in the street can be prosecuted for breach of them

[truefan999]

Where is wikipedia based?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Giggs

[Exiled_red]

They apply to everyone regardless of whether you are a journalist.

Basically you can not pubicly name the subject of a gagging order. You can't write about it in a newspaper or on the internet. You can't do it on tv or radio. In the UK or named territory.

But under what circumstances do they apply? If you don't know who the person is because they can't be named, how can you be subject to a gagging order? Surely you have to be party to the information to be subject to the gagging order. Equally surely the person obtaining the gagging order has to apply this to everyone they believe to be party to the information.

Obviously saying that x is the person who obtained a super-injunction to prevent details of the affair coming out is one thing. But if you just saw for example two people coming out of a hotel room together and later one got an injunction how would you know that they were the person that had take out an injunction regarding that incident? Surely you would have to be told you weren't allowed to tell anyone otherwise you wouldn't know.


Hopefully that makes sense.

[anfieldanfield]

It was Barry NOT Giggs apparently. That's the reason Giggs is suing!!

[Alex]

It was Barry NOT Giggs apparently. That's the reason Giggs is suing!!

Why did the Herald run the photo of Giggs then? Madness

[Exiled_red]

It was Barry NOT Giggs apparently. That's the reason Giggs is suing!!

Why did he not just come out and deny it then like Jemima Khan?

[Fivex]

Nah..they've both pummeled the clunge - haven't they?

[johnly]

Whoever it is has had their reps in court today and is now scared that fans will "boo him" MAN UP!

http://gu.com/p/2p9tc/tf - Link from the Guardian

A Premier League footballer fears that if details about his alleged extra-marital affair became public he would be "booed during games" and "the subject of cruel chants", according to a witness statement submitted to the high court.

In the witness statement the player said that exposing his personal life would have a "devastating effect on his marriage, on his wife and particularly their children".

"He states that it has become common for footballers whose private lives are exposed by the media to be booed during games and be the subject of cruel chants," the statement added.

The footballer and the woman he is alleged to have had an affair with obtained the injunction on 16 May – four days after the Sun gave the player's club notice that it intended to expose the alleged affair. On Monday high court judge Mr Justice Tugendhat published the reasons for the gagging order being granted and maintained.

The high court also heard on Monday how the footballer's legal team have submitted evidence concerning publication on Twitter which allegedly breach the injunction, as well as in the Sun and Daily Mail newspapers. Another footballer in a separate injunction case on Friday attempted to begin action against a number of Twitter users.

The written judgment details how a journalist from the Sun went to the woman's home several months ago and said the paper "would be willing to pay a lot of money" for the story, but she refused.

However, Tugendhat pointed out that this case is "not a case of kiss and tell", because both parties in the alleged relationship sought the gagging order. "It is one in which both parties to the past relationship wish to keep it private."

The judge added that the Sun had so far not produced any evidence to show that the gagging order should be lifted in the public interest. The paper had previously argued in a telephone conversation with the claimants' solicitors, Schillings, that it was in the public interest because the paper was "exposing his hypocrisy".

Tugendhat added: "No doubt NGN [News Group Newspapers, the publisher of the Sun] came to appreciate that, in the light of numerous judgments by different judges of the House of Lords, of the court of appeal, of this court and of the European court of human rights, it had no prospect of success."

In the written judgment handed down at the court, Tugendhat said: "The court does not grant injunctions which would be futile. But the fact that these publications have occurred does not mean that there should be no injunction in this case."

He added that there was "still something to be achieved by an injunction" even "once the secret is revealed".

"In the present case the effort of the publications ... is that private information which was secret is no longer secret. So to that extent one purpose of the injunction has been defeated," Tugendhat said. "There is a pressing need for the injunction to prevent harassment and unjustified intrusion into the lives of the claimants and the man's family."

Addressing the recent string of gagging orders taken out against the media, Tugendhat said that there was "no stereotype" to which they all fit. He pointed out that of those who have taken out injunctions, "many are women" and "many of the cases are about information which is not sexual".