 | This page in a nutshell:
|
Privacy injunctions, also known colloquially as gagging orders and judicially as interim non-disclosure orders, are court orders in England and Wales to prevent misuse of private information or breach of confidence. They aim to provide personal information secrecy by prohibiting misuse of information which is confidential or in which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy not outweighed by the public interest.
Beneficiaries of such orders have included Gary Flitcroft (affair), Lady Archer (diary), Ian Brady (psychiatrist report, David Beckham (home interior and state of marriage), Cherie Blair (domestic), Maxine Carr (anonymity), Sara Cox (topless shot), Andrew Deayton (sex life), Dawn French (daughter's parentage), Jemima Khan (Hotmail hack), Elizabeth Jagger (nightclub sex), Heather Mills (address), Fake Sheikh (photo), and Amy Whitehouse (cordon sanitaire). More controversially there were attempts to stop constituents talking to MPs (outed by John Hemming MP: ship water tanks in March 2011 and baby snatching by Doncaster in April 2011) and journalists reporting parliamentary proceedings (Trafigura toxic dumping in September 2009), before exploding onto the public stage in May 2011 with civil disobedience by parliamentarians, bloggers and tweeters against "gagging orders" obtained by celebrity adulterers such as Ryan Giggs.
This article excludes commercial secrets and other privacy rights created by the Human Rights Act, Data Protection Act, defamation or copyright (which do not provide much in the way of useful remedies), nor does it cover privacy rights against intrusion such as trespass, nuisance, harassment, emotional harm, insulting behaviour, voyeurism, and tapping. It only covers the remedy of injunction, which, due to low damages awards and the uselessness of money after secrecy is blown, is usually the claimant's only concern. Although some privacy-related injunctions are actually family injunctions and restricted reporting orders, this article does not cover family or court of protection law.
After explaining privacy law, it details who is entitled to get or remove an injunction and what happens if it is breached. It includes a list of controversial injunctions, with speculation as to parties, due to the public concern over and debate on interim non disclosure orders. It attempts to do all this in a manner reflective of current events, eg the 2011 super-injunction frenzy, responding to the public interest in correcting misunderstandings of the law, eg "judges are creating a privacy law" and "bloggers will go to prison".
 | This is not a Wikipedia article: It is an individual user's work-in-progress page, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable. For guidance on developing this draft, see Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search