Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

Lord Grabiner QC and Dr Kirsty Hughes—Written evidence
to have regard to whether publication is in the public interest, regardless of whether it is
raised by the defendant or not. Nevertheless, this practice has been starkly highlighted by
the Guardian’s recent analysis of applications for privacy injunctions 120 , which has revealed
that, between 2007 and 2011, a public interest argument was advanced in only seven cases;
21 out of the 38 cases identified in the Guardian’s survey did not involve a public interest
argument at all; and in the remaining cases, it is not clear whether a public interest argument
was put forward.
It is instructive to identify, as we do below, public interest arguments which have been
advanced by defendants, and their rate of success or failure.
Arguments which have succeeded
(i) There is a public interest in knowing about an allegation of professional wrongdoing.
The Court of Appeal accepted that there was a public interest in the full story being
publicised, particularly in view of the public argument that had already taken place in
the media: Hutcheson v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 808.
(ii) There is a public interest in knowing the job description of the colleague with whom
the former CEO of one of the largest publicly quoted companies in the United
Kingdom had an affair. The court accepted that there was a public interest in open
discussion of the circumstances in which it is proper for a chief executive (or other
person holding public office or exercising official functions) to carry on a sexual
relationship with an employee in the same organisation. The court also considered
that it was in the public interest that newspapers should be able to report cases
which raise a question as to what should or should not be a standard in public life:
Goodwin v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EMLR 27.
(iii) There is a public interest in publishing the names of suspected terrorists whose
assets have been frozen. The Supreme Court accepted that it was in the public
interest for the media to simulate debate concerning the use of freezing orders on
those suspected of terrorist activities. This would suffer if a report of the
proceedings did not reveal the identities of the individuals involved. The Supreme
Court also recognised that a more open attitude would be consistent with the
correct view that freezing orders are merely indicative of suspicion rather than guilt:
Re Guardian News and Media Ltd [2010] 2 AC 697.
120 Available online at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/datablog/2011/aug/05/superinjunctions-gagging-orders-injunctions-list#data
347