8/6/2019 Injunction granted to 'OPQ', a man

1/6

Names of claimants and

defendants are anonymised.The case is between twoparties and does not involveany newspaper

The rst defendant hadbeen trying to sellintimate .. and clearlyprivate photographs of theclaimant to a newspaper

The court was shownevidence of likely impact of publicity on health of claimants family

The newspaper was eitherthe Daily Mail or Mail onSunday. The claimant saidthey were discussing largesums of money

A hint of blackmail: paymoney and the problemmight go away for good

The judgethinkstheclaimanthasright toanonymity

8/6/2019 Injunction granted to 'OPQ', a man

2/6

The judge weighs up right to privacy (Article 8) with right toprivacy (Article 10). He can nd no public interest in publication

He cites a House of Lords precedent involving Naomi Campbelland a European Court decision about a German case

The judge warns mediacompanies so they knowabout the injunction

The defendants dont contestthe claim. So, the parties allagree to keep the intimatephotos secret....

... but the claimant is worriedthat wont stop the media,which may well persist inpublishing the allegations. Sohe is asking the judge for ageneral order stopping anyonefrom revealing whats beengoing on

8/6/2019 Injunction granted to 'OPQ', a man

3/6

The judge runs through thebits of case law - nearly allEnglish, not European, whichhe must bear in mind....

8/6/2019 Injunction granted to 'OPQ', a man

4/6

...now e u ge goes rougrecent changes to the law as aresult of the Human RightsAct. He mentions generalisedanonymity orders in the casesof the child killers Venablesand Mary Bell, which weredesigned to protect themfrom life-threatening risks.

8/6/2019 Injunction granted to 'OPQ', a man

5/6

The judge now brings inother cases which engageArticle 2 (right to life) of theHRA

He says children must beprotected under the Europeanconvention

8/6/2019 Injunction granted to 'OPQ', a man

6/6

The judge says there is solidmedical evidence about thehealth - including mentalhealth of the claimant andmembers of his family. Therecould be very seriousconsequences if publicationwent ahead....

Various newspapers had beenpreparing to oppose thisorder, but it may well be thatthe medical evidence has ledthem to drop their objections

In any event, there are noarguments from any mediacompany to the contrary

He says there is no evidenceof exposing or detectingcrime. This is a quote fromthe PCCs code of practice. heis obliged, under S 12 of theHRA, to see if the PCCs code- with its public interestdefence for intrusion - isrelevant. Its not, he nds.

The claimant is a private citizen, not apolitician

In the light of all the above the judge grants the injunction.