Internet
How to
Newspapers
Twitter
SEO advice
Categories: How to, Internet, Newspapers, Twitter. Tags: , , , , , ,

John Terry: another nail in the superinjunction coffin?

January 30, 2010 No Comment

John Terry's been "nobbing" Wayne Bridge's girlfriend as one of the edits on Wikipedia puts it. Terry got a superinjunction forbidding publication of this story - and of the fact that there was an injunction. This all fell apart on Friday. The case raises some interesting issues:

  • Despite the superinjunction, you could find out about the story on Twitter and Google easily enough - both raised the profile of Terry's affair via the trends list in Twitter's case and the Twitter search box in Google's.
  • No one seemed to understand the difference between an injunction and a superinjunction - the former banned reporting of JT's conduct, the latter banned revealing there was an injunction. They weren't necessarily both overturned, but there was a widespread assumption you could say what you liked about Terry once the superinjunction was overturned. This wasn't necessarily the case ...
  • The Mail and Telegraph seemed to flout the terms of the superinjunction - as did the Press Gazette which decided if wasn't bound as it hadn't seen a copy. This seemed risky behaviour legally - which makes me wonder if the papers were looking for a weak case to try to discredit superinjunctions.
  • This superinjunction should never have been granted. What was the original judge thinking?

Google revealed the story via its Twitter search box

Google revealed the story via its Twitter search box

Google and Twitter ignored the superinjunction

The superinjunction was overturned at about 1pm or 2pm on Friday. Needless to say, the papers had a field day today (Saturday).

But if you wanted to find out the story on Friday, it was relatively simple to do so. I typed John Terry's name into Google on Friday at about 11.15am - long before the injunction was lifted - and saw the screenshot, above.

Yes, the Google's twitter search box was happily showing people tweeting about John Terry and Wayne Bridge (and there were tweets showing giving full details of the affair). Later that day, they removed the twitter search results - whether this was algorithmic or for legal reasons, I don't know. But type both those names into Google or Twitter search, and it was easy to find the full story.

And by Friday lunchtime, both John Terry and Wayne Bridge were trending topics on Twitter, raising the profile of the issue. If you clicked on either to see what was being tweeted, you'd have found out about the affair instantly.

Shortly after, a judge ruled there were no grounds for the injunction, super or otherwise.

Guardian links to Twitter search for John Terry

As an aside, I noticed that the Guardian, in its coverage of the superinjunction, even included a link in one of its pieces to a Twitter search on John Terry.

They've removed it now (well, I can't find it anyway and probably for the best. You should either have the balls to run the full story or not. I don't think publishing a link to a twitter search is a reasonable half way house.)

Confusion still reigned

Once news that the super injunction had been lifted, no one knew (or perhaps cared) where they legally stood on Friday afternoon (as I've pointed out before about reporting restrictions).

It was reported that the superinjunction was lifted - but not whether there was a separate injunction relating to the facts of the case (ie could you report that JT had obtained an injunction, but not say why?).

Despite this, everyone went ahead and shouted about it all over the internet. If there was a separate injunction, it was finished.

You can see the confusion in the comments on this Guardian story from yesterday afternoon

Seastorm: I've no interest in gossiping about EBJT, but I am a little confused....is the paper concerned now allowed to go ahead and publish the allegations?

Busfield (replying to seastorm): The judgement means that we can now report that there was an injunction. The judge then says that the newspaper concerned will have to make its own assessment of the risks involved in publishing whatever the allegations may be, which will involve considerations of the laws relating to privacy and defamation.

Gooner UK (replying to seastorm): Nope, the removal of the superinjunction means that newspapers are allowed to publish the fact that an injunction is in place, and name the parties involved, but they are still not allowed to publish the subject matter itself.

The injunction still stands, it's just that we now know an injunction is in place. A superinjunction is so damaging because it means we (the public) are deliberately kept in the dark as to the very existence of an injunction.

And bear in mind that an injunction is in theory an act of last resort anyway. A superinjunction adds another level to that, which can be very dangerous in terms of press freedom.

Busfield (replying to Gooner UK): my understanding, and I am not a lawyer but I have spent much of the day talking to one, is that both the super and the injunction have gone. It is up to the paper concerned to decide whether it can publish its story without breaking the laws of defamation and relating to privacy.

The background: two papers ignore the injunction

It's also interesting that two newspapers decide to ignore, or sail very close to the wind with regards to, the superinjunction - ie they ran stories that appeared to be in breach of it.

Mail reports injunction's existence

As the Press Gazette reported yesterday morning (ie before the superinjunction was lifted):

A new “super-injunction” has been used by a Premier League footballer to stop national newspapers reporting his alleged marital infidelity.

The Daily Mail identifies the man only as a married England international.

The Daily Mail today reports, in apparent defiance of the order: "So draconian is Mr Justice Tugendhat’s order that even its existence is supposed to be a secret."

(It's interesting that the Press Gazette felt able to run the story about the existence of the superinjnction stating "Press Gazette has not been served with the injunction." - I would have thought that this was also sailing close to the wind. It knew there was a super injunction, and I'm surprised its lawyers didn't make an attempt to find out the full details.)

The Mail's piece had a couple of nods and winks to Terry's role:

A married England international footballer was granted a sweeping injunction to prevent publication of his affair with the girlfriend of a team-mate ... It could be anyone from the captain of the top team in the land ..."

What, like the captain of England, you mean?

As does the Telegraph

On top of this, the Telegraph had run a piece, too, according to the Guardian:

Yesterday The Daily Telegraph technically breached the "super" part of the superinjunction by reporting that the courts were hiding the identity of a footballer and allegations about his private life. (This piece appeared in print but is no longer online).

Maybe since the Trafigura injunction, newspapers have been looking for a way to kill off superinjunctions. If they wanted a weak super injunction to pick on as a way to discredit them, this seemed a prime example.

Whatever their reasons, nothing seems likely to happen to the Mail and the Telegraph for breaching or nearly breaching this one - unlike in the Trafigura case, it seems unlikely John Terry is going to successfully sue anyone over this issue.

Conclusion

The Mail sums it up well:

In a scathing ruling, the judge made it clear he suspected Terry was more afraid of losing the commercial deals than anything else.

He said the footballer appeared to have brought his High Court action in a desperate move to protect his earnings - rather than the woman with whom he had been conducting his affair.

(And given this, it's hard to see how the superinjunction was ever granted.)

There are legitimate reasons for injunctions and even superinjunctions.

But judges need to think very carefully before granting them. And the British courts and the right to privacy should not be used to protect the commercial interests of a man "crowned father of the year" who at the same time had cheated on his wife with his team mate's partner (and that's only half the story, according to the internet).

You might also like
  1. Super injunctions and Twitter: Alfie Patten, John Terry, [redacted] and [redacted]
  2. Fred Goodwin’s “affair” super-injunction shredded by internet
  3. Twitter and super injunctions: no one need pack their toothbrush
  4. Super injunction names: 6 national newspaper stories that flouted the injunction to reveal all
  5. The Sun buries its Chris Jefferies apology – another nail in the coffin of self regulation

Share this post

Follow me on Facebook or Twitter

Leave a comment!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.