Names of claimants and

defendants are anonymised.

The case is between two
parties and does not involve
any newspaper

The first defendant had The court was shown

been trying to sell evidence of likely impact of
“intimate .. and clearly publicity on health of
private photographs” of the claimant’s family
claimant to a newspaper

The newspaper was either

The the Daily Mail or Mail on
judge Sunday. The claimant said
thinks they were discussing large
the sums of money
claimant
has
right to A hint of blackmail: pay
anonym money and the problem
ity “might go away for good”
The judge weighs up right to privacy (Article 8) with right to He cites a House of Lords precedent involving Naomi Campbell
privacy (Article 10). He can find no public interest in publication and a European Court decision about a German case

The judge warns media

companies so they know
about the injunction

The defendants don’t contest

the claim. So, the parties all
agree to keep the intimate
photos secret....

... but the claimant is worried

that won’t stop the media,
which may well persist in
publishing the allegations. So
he is asking the judge for a
general order stopping anyone
from revealing what’s been
going on
The judge runs through the
bits of case law - nearly all
English, not European, which
he must bear in mind....
...now the judge goes through
recent changes to the law as a
result of the Human Rights
Act. He mentions generalised
anonymity orders in the cases
of the child killers Venables
and Mary Bell, which were
designed to protect them
from life-threatening risks.
The judge now brings in
other cases which engage
Article 2 (right to life) of the
HRA

He says children must be

protected under the European
convention
 The judge says there is “solid
medical evidence” about the
health - including mental
health” of the claimant and
members of his family. There
could be “very serious
consequences” if publication
went ahead....

Various newspapers had been

preparing to oppose this
order, but “it may well be” that
the medical evidence has led
them to drop their objections

In any event, there are no

arguments from any media
company to the contrary

He says there is no evidence

of “exposing or detecting
crime”. This is a quote from
the PCC’s code of practice. he
is obliged, under S 12 of the
HRA, to see if the PCC’s code The claimant is a private citizen, not a
- with its public interest politician
defence for intrusion - is
relevant. It’s not, he finds.

In the light of all the above the

judge grants the injunction.