Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

Alex Hall—Written Evidence
in the public interest or not. However, if a person wishes only to protect his or her own
interests, and their reputation may be at stake through their own misdeeds, they should
accept responsibility rather than using money, power and the law to try and cover them up.
In terms of striking a balance between privacy and freedom of expression, there are clearly
problems with the status quo. In my case, I had had an 8 year relationship with the person
who injuncted me, had been married to him, and revisited the relationship for another 10
years post-divorce, and wished to write a book from my perspective and about my life
(some of which involved him). It is my life, and the fact that he did not want the public to
have any knowledge of an association with me should not have been grounds for an
injunction to be granted.
A better system would be to require notice of a dispute to be given prior to an injunction
being granted, with the dispute placed in abeyance for a period of 4 weeks. During that time,
the matter should be mediated, and a judge should make an impartial determination as to
whether an injunction is appropriate after hearing submissions from both sides. The two
parties may be able to reach a compromise, thus negating the need for an injunction anyway.
Further, I believe that prior notification is essential.
When deciding which factors should be relevant in striking the balance between privacy and
freedom of expression, I believe that the commercial viability of the press should not be
considered. A person has a right to privacy unless they have forgone that right by misdeeds;
if they do not have that right to privacy, a commercial deal could be done between them and
the press. Celebrities and politicians should generally be taken as having waived their rights
to privacy through choice, although the extent to which this has been waived should be
assessed on a case by case basis dependent upon how far the individual has used their image
or private life for popularity. This should be so regardless of whether the use of the image is
directly relevant to the story, so there should not be a need for a "hypocrisy" argument to
justify publication. In the context of sexual conduct, salacious details should never be
reported on, but the fact that a sexual relationship occurred can be.
(3) Issues relating to the enforcement of anonymity injunctions and super-injunctions
In the information age, "new media" is virtually unstoppable. This means that ordinary
anonymous injunctions cannot be enforced, which renders them futile. Super-injunctions,
where the knowledge of their existence and those to whom they relate is secret, are the
only way to ensure that injunctions work. It is neither practical nor desirable to prosecute
"tweeters" or bloggers, since they are merely enjoying their freedom of expression. Further,
the lack of regulation of new media means that there is no point in trying to restrict the
press intrusion when such barriers can be circumvented relatively easily.
31 January 2012
402