Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

Sir Christopher Meyer, Martin Moore, Julian Petley, and John Kampfner—Oral evidence
(QQ 404–444)
Sir Christopher Meyer: But a very serious matter has been raised by a member of
your Committee.
Q437 Chairman: All I will say, Sir Christopher, is that the Culture, Media and
Sport Committee concluded there was new evidence to show there was widespread
involvement, and the Press Complaints Commission concluded there was no evidence.
Sir Christopher Meyer: No, no. I have here in a little plastic folder what the Press
Complaints Commission actually concluded.
Q438 Chairman: Let’s not revisit that because it is not the subject of this inquiry.
Sir Christopher Meyer: Let me make the very important point that it was not visible
and obvious, and it was not for the Press Complaints Commission to implement the criminal
law. That is a matter for the police. When the police investigation was concluded at the
end of 2006, and the trial was held and the men were sent down, it was then constitutionally
right for the PCC to make its own investigation, which it did. When published in May 2007,
I seem to remember that your select committee, Chairman, greeted it warmly for its
conclusions and the protocol it set out for the whole newspaper industry. The system,
imperfect though it may be, worked exactly as it was meant to work: the police first and the
PCC afterwards.
Q439 Chairman: I do not think we want to spend any more time on that. I was
referring to the subsequent report by the Press Complaints Commission, at which time I
agree you were no longer chairman.
Sir Christopher Meyer: Thank you, Chairman.
John Kampfner: Perhaps I may turn to the point about injunctions.
Q440 Lord Janvrin: Prior notification.
John Kampfner: One member of the Joint Committee in the previous session with
the bloggers referred to the temporary nature of injunctions. There are three types of
injunction: super-injunctions; anonymised injunctions; and open injunctions. Superinjunctions,
which I accept are often confused with anonymised injunctions, have been used
to a considerable degree. Shockingly, the Ministry of Justice keeps no record of them. I
think that should change immediately. They are a sledgehammer approach. Possibly one in a
million times you might want to use it; that is, mental health, suicide, danger to children or
whatever, make it so stringent that the fact of the injunction even having been asked for
should be withheld.
On anonymised injunctions, there is a greater potential use for them but on a very
temporary basis; in other words, on a Saturday evening the lawyer for the potentially injured
party finds out that a newspaper, it is usually a Sunday one, is about to run a story. He gets
an anonymised injunction, which is usually granted, simply as a stay. Occasionally, it is not
granted. Then, at 11 o’clock on Monday morning the lawyers come together with the judge
and assess the public interest override or not, as the case may be, for that particular story.
612