Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke QC MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, and Rt
Hon Jeremy Hunt MP, Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport—Oral
evidence (QQ 1021–1069)
granted but for secrecy to surround its very existence. That situation would not prevail for
anything other than a very short, temporary period and in quite exceptional circumstances. I
was not party to the evidence you heard, but it seems to underline what I said to Mr Eustice.
It was very high in the public mind 12 months ago and was addressed by the Master of the
Rolls. Let us hope that the balance has been struck more sensibly. We are open to
arguments. I am sure the Master of the Rolls would be open to argument if he thought it
still was not right.
Q1044 Chair: Some of the super-injunctions are still in place. In this particular
instance it is still in place.
Mr Clarke: Are you sure it is a super-injunction?
Q1045 Chair: Yes.
Mr Clarke: We have always had injunctions granted in defamation cases where
people get warning that some defamatory action is about to take place. For a brief time
some of the newspapers began to refer to all of them as super-injunctions. You and I know
what is meant by a super-injunction. With any luck, they should go back to being
considerable rarities, and, where they are granted, they should apply for only a short period.
Q1046 Chair: My understanding is that, in this case, it is the nature of the superinjunction
that is causing the problem. He is not even able to refer to the fact that he is
subject to an injunction.
Mr Clarke: There have to be some pretty strong reasons for that. It is conceivable
that you would want a super-injunction. If you were told somebody would accuse you of
murder the following morning and you were convinced they had got the wrong guy, you
might want, first, to obtain an injunction and, second, you might not want them to report
that you have an injunction of any kind for some fearsome attack on you. There has to be a
reason for that; otherwise, you would normally allow the person to say they are being
prevented from reporting what they would otherwise want to report. There are extreme
cases where it might be proper not to express it at all, but those circumstances have been
very closely confined by the Master of the Rolls. You cannot have just long-running secret
litigation. So, where they are granted, the expectation now is that they are granted for only
a very short period of time until no doubt the whole extreme situation is sorted out by a
judge making a proper order to resolve the issue.
Q1047 Martin Horwood: Both of you in your comments today and in your
written evidence suggest that you are reasonably happy with the current content of the
Editors’ Code of Practice and the implication of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code where it
relates to the right to breach privacy in the public interest, but should we, Lord Justice
Leveson or the Government decide that that right or public interest definition needs to be
clarified or changed, whom do you think should be responsible for the definition? Should it
be judges, Parliament or the media?
677