Social networking site Twitter has rendered super-injunctions "pointless", according to former lord chancellor and justice secretary Lord Falconer.
He told the Daily Mail it seems "very difficult" to ensure such injunctions are complied with.
It comes after a Twitter user tried to unmask some celebrities who obtained super-injunctions to prevent details of their private lives being published.
The tweets to "out" some UK public figures appeared to contain errors.
The Twitter user attracted thousands of followers and the content of the posts was discussed widely on the micro-blogging website.
Commenting on concerns over injunctions and non-mainstream media, Lord Falconer said: "If a point is reached as a matter of evidence when everyone knows who the injunctions are about then they become pretty pointless.
"It sounds like it's very difficult to make sure that injunctions like this are complied with."
Campaigner Jemima Khan recently denied getting a super-injunction to stop publication of "intimate" photos of herself and Jeremy Clarkson, in her own Twitter response.
Continue reading the main story
“Start Quote
Twitter is only one grade up from the discussion down the pub”
Max Mosley Ex-motorsports boss
She issued her response on Twitter after the claims appeared on the website on Sunday.
She tweeted: "Rumour that I have a super injunction preventing publication of "intimate" photos of me and Jeremy Clarkson. NOT TRUE!"
In a later tweet, she said: "I hope the people who made this story up realise that my sons will be bullied at school because of it. Plus I'm getting vile hate tweets."
Super-injunctions have been issued by the courts to protect people from what they see as their right to privacy from the press.
Even the fact that an injunction has been granted, or the name of the person applying for it, must be kept secret.
Some newspapers - and MPs - have attempted to challenge the court orders, suggesting it should be Parliament and not the courts which decide on the introduction of any privacy law.
Speaking shortly after losing his European Court of Human Rights bid to force newspapers to warn people before exposing their private lives, Max Mosley said allegations made on Twitter were "completely different to a serious publication in a major national newspaper".
Effective tool?
"I think the Twitter thing is just a temporary bit of hysteria in an attempt to try and get opposition to injunctions which shouldn't really happen," said the ex-motorsports boss.
"Twitter is only one grade up from the discussion down the pub. If somebody tells you that I heard in the pub that this footballer has done whatever you would not pay much attention to it."
Last month, Prime Minister David Cameron said the increasing use of such strict gagging orders made him feel uneasy.
A report by a committee set up by the Master of the Rolls - the most senior civil law judge at the Court of Appeal - will report on their use later this month.
BBC legal correspondent Clive Coleman said it will have to grapple with the issue of publication online.
"If it doesn't, the super or secret injunction may no longer be an effective tool in the administration of justice," he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment