Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

Rt Hon Dominic Grieve QC MP, Attorney General—Oral evidence (QQ 1070–1102)
a case to bring action against somebody, between the re-tweeters and the “likers” on
Facebook, and the person who first commits that breac.?
Mr Grieve: We have to be quite clear about this. The defendant to contempt
proceedings must have proper notice of the terms of the injunction; otherwise, the person
cannot be held guilty of contempt for breaching an order of which they know nothing.
What knowledge is sufficient to establish liability is a matter of fact in each case, but a
tweeter who repeats a story and communicates it to others in the knowledge that it is a
piece of forbidden information, which is the subject of a court order, makes himself liable in
civil proceedings to the possibility of being pursued for contempt, just as much as the
person who originally put it online.
Q1079 Martin Horwood: But if the super-injunction prevents people from
knowing about the injunction, how can that possibly be the case?
Mr Grieve: I accept that entirely. If it is a super-injunction and the matter is
unknown to them there is nothing you can do about it, which is why in all likelihood they
will not be pursued, but the person who put it on with knowledge will be. In the context of
Parliament this has arisen, because the point rather fairly made is that, if you do not know
about the existence of a super-injunction, even in the parliamentary context it might be
rather difficult for people to respect its terms. I know that is something at which the
Master of the Rolls was looking. There will be obvious tension in this area. If people do not
have knowledge of the existence of an injunction they cannot breach it. We do not live in a
Kafkaesque world in this respect. I think the principles of law are fairly well established.
Q1080 Lord Janvrin: We have heard from bloggers that if they do not know what
the injunction is, how can they abide by it? You are saying that is also your understanding.
Mr Grieve: Yes, it is my understanding. We have to be a little careful here. People
may often say, “Well, I knew it was forbidden but I did not know the full terms.” I think at
that stage they might start to run into rather more choppy waters. You would have to look
at it on a case-by-case basis, but you would have to show what the defendant knew about
the injunction and its precise terms. It is inevitable that that should be the case, and it has
also applied in the past. We do not hold people liable for contempt of court if they
inadvertently state something in ignorance of the existence of injunctions.
Q1081 Lord Janvrin: But the normal process is that the injunction is served on a
newspaper?
Mr Grieve: The person against whom you seek to protect yourself will know exactly
what the terms of the injunction are. I am not sure I like the term “super-injunction”, but
the secret injunction system is that by the nature of its being granted secretly it is likely that
nobody will know about it, they hope, except for the people who are the object of the
injunction. If the party has failed in doing that, there will be a problem. Equally, one can
also ask: how did the story get out? The person who is the recipient of the order may have
some explaining to do.
15