Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

Alex Hall and Charlotte Harris, partner, Mishcon de Reya solicitors, and solicitor to Alex
Hall—Oral evidence (QQ 1629–1731)
Q1728 George Eustice: Alex Hall, in your evidence you proposed having a fourweek
period where there is mediation before an injunction is granted. Is that not really what
an injunction is intended to do in the first place? You are almost having an injunction on
whether there should be an injunction. You are simply having a four-week period where the
two sides marshal their arguments.
Alex Hall: Where the defendant could be jailed if they do not abide by it—that’s a
really fair way of doing it! It is not fair at the moment; it is totally one-sided. There is no
equanimity therel. If you do not abide by the terms of the injunction, you are sent to jail.
Charlotte Harris: Or if you do not understand the terms of the injunction.
Alex Hall: Or if you do not understand it. If you have: “This is a notice of an
injunction. You have a four-week period to have this mediated. Go and find a mediator.
Here is a list of people that you can contact”, and that is sent to both parties—
Q1729 George Eustice: What safeguard would there be to ensure that any party
to that mediation could not go and leak the details to the press, in the absence of an
injunction that prevented their doing so?
Alex Hall: You can have an interim rule that you cannot talk to the press and you
cannot make any of it public until it has been to mediation and a judge has made an impartial
decision, after hearing both sides of the story.
Q1730 George Eustice: That would then be an interim injunction anyway,
wouldn’t it?
Alex Hall: I suppose—would that be called an interim—
Charlotte Harris: But it would not feel the same. Part of the stress is that mediation
sounds different and feels different, although of course it is vulnerable to abuse, in the same
way that anonymised injunctions are. Of course, things can come out, which is why one has
to look at other solutions and see how they go and what the alternatives are, but you can
never safeguard against that—burglars always get in, even when you have a fantastic security
system.
For instance, mediation could be set up and somebody could come to me and say,
“Look, there is a mediation. I am prevented from speaking at the moment, but we have got
this.” For a start, you would have this defined period of time, rather than a big scary
document with a very quick return date, where suddenly you are in court in front of a judge.
If you go to court the whole time, it is not frightening—you can waltz in there and it is what
you do every day—but it is very frightening for the subject of an injunction to go to court or
for a claimant to go and ask a judge to grant an injunction. Courtrooms are frightening and
intimidating, and people are not used to them at all. Mediation feels different. Mediation does
not wind both sides into a state of panic and anxiety, and it would have, I hope, some kind of
control over the costs. In addition the defined period of time—the four weeks—means that
it is not hanging over you. It is neither a fast and necessary return date, nor is it a trial, so it
potentially gives everybody an opportunity to deal with it like rational adults, if it works and
is not abused.
425