The full implications of this new methodology present themselves most acutely when the court is asked to grant an order preventing publication. That is a remedy of greater significance in the context of protecting personal or private information than used to be the case in defamation. Continue reading
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Month: December 2011 (Page 2 of 4)
The “News of the World” took centre stage at the Leveson Inquiry last week, with evidence from former NoW journalists Mazher Mahmood, Neil Wallis, Neville Thurlbeck, Colin Myler and Daniel Sanderson, lawyers Lawrence Abramson (formerly of Harbottle & Lewis) and Julian Pike (of Farrer & Co), former NoW in-house lawyers Tom Crone and Jon Chapman, and the private investigator Derek Webb. We have posted a round up of weeks three and four. Continue reading
The evidence heard in the third and fourth weeks of the Leveson Inquiry has broadened the focus from the initial “crash course in the ways of the tabloids” to the “non-phone hacking” activities of the News of the World (“NoW”) and the approaches of its lawyers. Continue reading
It is recognised in the United Kingdom that there is a public interest in protecting personal privacy, not least in the light of our various international obligations contained in the International Covenant and in the European Convention on Human Rights. It is right to say that we still do not have a general free-standing law of privacy. But we have rules which protect certain aspects of personal life. Continue reading
This is the second and concluding part of Julian Petley’s submission to the Leveson Inquiry. The first part was posted on 15 December 2011.
I now want to return to the nature of the freedom which newspapers claim is rightly theirs. One of the main problems here is that the arguments for freedom of expression, as a right which everyone enjoys, are frequently taken over wholesale by newspaper owners and editors as arguments for press freedom. Continue reading
As Corporal Jones might have said, they don’t like it up ’em. The ruthless methods of mass circulation papers are being exposed at the Leveson inquiry as never before, so they are lashing out like cornered animals. Continue reading
On 14 November 2011, when Lord Justice Leveson opened the formal phase of his Inquiry, he stated that ‘I fully consider freedom of expression and the freedom of the press to be fundamental to our democracy, fundamental to our way of life. But that freedom must be exercised with the rights of others in mind’. In this submission to the Inquiry, I want to suggest that the time has come to re-think the whole notion of press freedom – and indeed of the freedom of the media in general. Continue reading
Open justice was one of the issues at the heart of the debate over so called “super injunctions” in 2011. From senior members of the judiciary to tabloid commentators, the subject has attracted attention and opinion from all sides. Its importance, and the potential for litigants to use the principle for their own ends, were considered in a judgment on the costs arising from an interim application given by Tugendhat J on 2 December 2011 (Coward v Harraden [2011] EWHC 3092 (QB)). The decision followed a hearing on costs arising from an Application Notice issued on May 16 2011 seeking an order to make public the contents of two earlier judgments by Sharp J. These concerned the granting of a Norwich Pharmacal order sought by the Claimant against the Defendant during two private hearings. Continue reading
For a change, we’ll start with something other than Leveson. England footballer Wayne Rooney has filed a libel writ against Mirror Group Newspapers over an article that appeared in the Sunday Mirror reports the Press Gazette.
At the New Statesman, David Allen Green examines psychic Sally Morgan’s reported legal complaint against Associated Newspapers. He reports that a libel claim has not yet been issued and questions the place of libel litigation in this case.
Despite the law’s seemingly antagonistic relationship with Twitter over injunction breaches and contemptuous comments, the microblogging service has provided a vibrant place for live court reports and legal debate.
The increasing number of legal firms and lawyers on Twitter use it in very different ways; some pepper their tweets with personal observation, others keep it strictly professional or corporate.
Recent Judgments
© 2026 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑