Statistics about non-reportable injunctions, the so-called secret ’super injunctions’ are not collected by the High Court, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Bridget Prentice said yesterday, in answer to a written Parliamentary question.

MP Paul Farrelly tabled a written question asking the Secretary of State for Justice ‘if he will (a) collect and (b) publish statistics on the number of non-reportable injunctions issued by the High Court in each of the last five years.’

Bridget Prentice answered that the information requested is not currently available and the High Court has no intention to collate such data:

“The High Court collects figures on applications, however injunctions are not separately identifiable, and there are currently no plans to amend databases to do so.”

• House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 15 Oct 2009

(Hat-tip: @loveandgarbage on Twitter)

• Journalism.co.uk coverage of the case involving the Guardian, Trafigura and Carter-Ruck can be found at this link

Similar Posts:

• Guardian.co.uk: Government to convene senior politicians summit to ‘reinforce’ freedom of the press
• MediaGuardian: MPs’ super injunction debate to go ahead on Wednesday
• Trafigura update: Jack Straw to examine use of ’super injunctions’
• Carter-Ruck abandons attempt to gag Guardian on Trafigura question
• Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger on Trafigura’s ‘own goal’

The Independent reports how its group, Independent News & Media (INM), supported by other media organisations, is currently challenging private hearings for certain cases.

“The cases involve vulnerable people incapable of managing their own affairs, including brain-damaged soldiers, people with Alzheimer’s disease and others lacking mental capacity.

“In a test case before the High Court in London, this newspaper argued that such matters should not be decided in secret by the newly created Court of Public Protection.”

This latest challenge follows the opening up of the family courts earlier this year.

The case will continue at the High Court today.

Independent story at this link…

Similar Posts:

• The Register/OUT-LAW.com: Times libel ruling is warning for online news archives
• High Court does not collect statistics on ’super injunctions’
• Naming Baby P is not about giving into a Facebook campaign
• Guardian tribunal decision is ‘outrageous’, says FOI campaigner
• Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger on Trafigura’s ‘own goal’

Yesterday we noted how the UK High Court served its first order via Twitter, saying that the social website and microblogging service was the best way to reach an anonymous Tweeter who had been impersonating someone.

Solicitors Griffin Law sought the injunction against @blaneysblarney claiming that it was impersonating the solicitor Donal Blaney – the owner of Griffin Law – who uses the name Blaney’s Blarney for his right-wing political blog.

His barrister, Matthew Richardson, is triumphing it as the ‘Blaney’s Blarney order’ – a success in the battle against anonymous abuse online, he said.

But it also raises questions about the threat to freedom of speech caused by such an order. Cynics might also suggest such a high-profile move was simply good PR for Blaney’s firm. Journalism.co.uk put these questions to Donal Blaney this morning:

Bypassing Twitter to court

Blaney said he chose not to contact Twitter but go straight to court, because the microblogging service is like the ‘very worst ISPs were 10 years ago’, who said ‘oh it’s not our fault, we just provide the platform’.

“Well, the court says ‘no chaps. It is your fault’. You are a publisher and you are just as liable as if the Daily Telegraph published something,” argued Blaney.

When he approached the service during another case – his client wanted to have an account removed – he had found Twitter unhelpful: “It took a week for the offending account to be taken down – which is outrageous. Getting hold of Twitter is impossible. They don’t provide a phone number. There is a fax number that no one replied to.”

High risk strategy, but good PR

“Ok yes, I am getting good coverage on this,” Blaney admits. “But equally if it had gone wrong people would have called me a prat.”

Blaney is not convinced it will win him additional clients: “Unfortunately the way the legal profession works, even though I might like to think ‘oh great on the back of this every celeb or sportsperson who is being impersonated is going to come and use my firm’, I know they’re not.

“I was resigned to having to waste a week of my life chasing Twitter to get them to take it down. I thought it was worth giving it a go in court. I’m at risk on damages.”

[Cross-undertaking damages: applicant will be required to pay the damage caused to the defendant arising from the grant of the interim injunction, if it turns out the injunction should not have been ordered in the first place]

Bullying not parody, says Blaney

Blaney said it was not an instance of satire or parody in his view: “The grounds under which I got the order were breach of copyright and passing off.” And the court agreed, he says, or he wouldn’t have got the order.

“It is bullying, that is precisely what it is: to set up an account in someone else’s name. To pass yourself off as them, to contact your friends and pretend to be them. To use your image, to use the name of your blog, to deliberately and maliciously to screw with someone else’s head. That’s bullying: exactly the same concept as flushing someone’s head down a toilet or anything else,” he claimed.

He said he advised others – and names at least one celebrity currently being mocked in a similar fashion – to think about similar action:

“If it’s a situation where someone’s being parodied this is not the route to pursue; if it’s a situation where someone is being stalked or bullied or harassed, or having their intellectual property rights infringed, I would encourage them to do this.”

Blaney believes harassment ‘trumps’ the right to freedom of speech:

“There are two other things that trump freedom of speech: right to [intellectual] property and infringing copyright,” he argues.

“There is a boundary which gets overtaken – harassment, the malicious causing of harassment and distress. There’s no such thing as unfettered freedom of speech.”

And what next?

The account holder must obey the court order, or will be in contempt of court. But what Blaney’s next step is, he doesn’t know. “Will this person just take the site down and not reveal their identity?” he asks.

If it is closed, that would only solve it ‘up to a point’ he claims, adding ‘but it depends if I can be bothered to go after the individual behind it.’

Journalism.co.uk has attempted to contact @blaneysblarney for further comment (via Twitter.)

What do you think? Was the court correct to issue such an order? What are the implications for online anonymity?

Similar Posts:

• Donal Blaney says Twitterer to comply with injunction
• Reuters: ‘UK court orders writ to be served via Twitter’
• CMLP: Anonymity of online speakers protected in District of Columbia Court of Appeals
• @press_freedom: a new Twitter service from Journalism.co.uk
• Twitter round-up: Twitter for sale and twittering for freedom

The News of the World has been granted permission to republish a video on its website of Max Mosley, despite attempts by the formula one boss to have the footage removed.

Mosley, who is alleged to have participated in a Nazi-style orgy, had sought a High Court injunction banning the newspaper from showing the video or using images of the incident in the paper.

His application was refused today prompting a fighting statement from the paper’s legal manager Tom Crone, which said Mosley’s attempts to ’suppress’ the video had ‘failed’.

Read more on the story at Journalism.co.uk.

Similar Posts:

• TimesOnline: News of the World acted like ‘Peeping Tom’ with Max Mosley video report, court hears
• More from Dacre: The Daily Mail editor on Max Mosley and ‘Flat Earth News’
• Press Gazette: Mosley sues NoW in French courts over Nazi orgy story
• Update: Jacob Zuma still pursuing case against Guardian
• Myler on Mosley: ‘I make no apologies for publishing that story as editor’