UK 'Superinjunction' Bans Anyone From Identifying Plaintiff In Libel Case

from the mr-z,-who-are-you? dept

Wed, Mar 30th 2011 9:59pm — Mike Masnick

The UK's ongoing attack on free speech continues, with a judge issuing a "superinjunction" against anyone in the UK identifying who "Mr Z" is in a libel case. This is apparently the first time such a superinjunction has been used in a libel case. Apparently, Mr Z is upset at some relatives who are accusing him of "misappropriating money from the trust fund and of a sex offence," both of which the mysterious Mr. Z insists are not true. Apparently the allegations have been published on a blog somewhere, but UK publications are forbidden from even giving people enough information to find that. Of course, all of this makes me wonder how effective any of this can be. It's really only a matter of time until people figure out who he is, and all this "super" secrecy is probably only increasing interest in what sounds like a pretty boring family feud otherwise.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: free speech, injunction, libel, uk

38 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Pixelation, 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:09pm

This is why the US disassociated itself from England. Too bad we're starting to follow suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2011 @ 3:26am
  
  Re:
  The further England gets away from America the better (in 99.999% of cases) however having said that UK libel laws really do suck, although this doesnt mean we want to go down the American path, we are already suffering from following your horrendous blame and sue culture.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:11pm

This is in the UK, so this may not be the case every time, but as this guy is suing for defamation, claiming the 'bad' content is false, wouldn't he want people to KNOW that he's not some money-grubbing rapist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 31 Mar 2011 @ 1:00am
  
  Re:
  Ah but libel in the UK doesn't care if it is true or not, so if one of the defences of the person who is allegedly libeling this "Mr Zed" is truth, then everyone would then know that YES he was a money-grubbing sex fiend who denies the truth.
  
  And bet ya a brass Razoo this guy is or wants to be a Tory politician.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2011 @ 11:35am
    
    Re: Re:
    Like I said, this case is in the UK. But if you look at what Mike wrote, it looks like the guy has told the court that the defamatory statements are untrue. It's not a question of legality, it's a question of stupidity.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
wtachi, 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:17pm

Publicity stunt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:26pm

He must be selling something I can boycott. That'd be a good reason for secrecy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
molecule (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:50pm

is Techdirt a UK publication?

http://boingboing.net/2011/03/11/notorious-financier.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Brendan (profile), 30 Mar 2011 @ 11:30pm
  
  Mr. Z = Fred Goodwin
  Just to spell it out:
  
  Mr. Z = Sir Fred Goodwin, former Royal Bank of Scotland chief
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - G Thompson (profile), 31 Mar 2011 @ 1:03am
    
    Re: Mr. Z = Fred Goodwin
    Muwahahahahahahah
    
    From my prophetic comment above it seems I am now the owner of a Brass razoo ;)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2011 @ 5:41am
      
      Re: Re: Mr. Z = Fred Goodwin
      That raises more questions. Could bloggers, who sometimes like to pretend they are "media", now be subject to those laws and be punished for the offense of publishing the information?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - vivaelamor (profile), 31 Mar 2011 @ 6:18am
    
    Re: Mr. Z = Fred Goodwin
    "Mr. Z = Sir Fred Goodwin, former Royal Bank of Scotland chief"
    
    I'm almost certain that's a separate story. I can find at least two stories that better fit the circumstances (misappropriations of family trust funds and allegations of sexual abuse), though I'm not certain either of those are the ones this injunction is referring to.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - vivaelamor (profile), 31 Mar 2011 @ 6:23am
      
      Re: Re: Mr. Z = Fred Goodwin
      OK, now I'm certain that it's not Fred Goodwin.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 31 Mar 2011 @ 10:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Mr. Z = Fred Goodwin
        OK, so who are the other two?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adrian Lopez, 30 Mar 2011 @ 10:51pm

Libel laws in the UK are really fucked up.

Read all about it:
http://www.libelreform.org/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rikuo (profile), 31 Mar 2011 @ 12:34am

So will this be a similar situation to Wikileaks, where even though anyone and everyone knew and had access to the cables, you had to pretend on your official work computers that the documents were classified? So I can name Mr Z on my Irish computer now if I want to, but if I happen to take a laptop with me on a day trip to London, I'm suddenly not allowed to name him?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2011 @ 12:35am

I agree with the court. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with publicising allegations which are in-progress. Wait until it is over before spreading the claims (proven or not) around the planet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2011 @ 12:52am
  
  Re:
  That is exactly what freedom of speech has to do with.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 31 Mar 2011 @ 1:21am
  
  Re:
  That's what defamation laws are for. There is no such thing as freedom of speech, sadly, regardless of your opinion. The allefations have been around for at least two years, for the person in question, who is generally considered a money-grabbing scrote, even by banker's standards.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jake, 31 Mar 2011 @ 3:01am
    
    Re: Re:
    Unfortunately, the popular press in this country have shown a depressing tendency to form their own conclusions about guilt or innocence (usually the former), and stick to said conclusions regardless of any subsequent evidence to the contrary. From the article:
    During the hearing on 3 March, Richard Spearman QC claimed it would be unfair to identify the financier, even though there was no truth in the allegations, because "the fact that [he] has had to seek relief would be capable of being made into a story in its own right and would be likely to lead to widespread speculation as to what story he has been concerned to prevent the defendants from telling". The court was told that employers and other family members had been contacted with the allegations.
    
    There's also the complicating factor of that allegation of an unspecified "sex offence", as victims of sexual assault in this country are supposed to be guaranteed anonymity.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 31 Mar 2011 @ 3:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The sex offence allegation could be anything from harrassment to rape. The fact that he went and got s superinjunction only Streisanded the mounting issues this sorry excuse for a person has.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2011 @ 3:29am
  
  Re:
  From the boingboing article linked by another comment, "the injunction also prohibits the press from disclosing that it exists". Even without going into the merits of being forbidden to name the guy, being forbidden to mention you are being forbidden to name the guy is insane.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
PeteProdge (profile), 31 Mar 2011 @ 4:21am

Bernard Keane's tweets
Have you seen the Twitter account of @BernardKeane yesterday? What an interesting chap he is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- vivaelamor (profile), 31 Mar 2011 @ 6:22am
  
  Re: Bernard Keane's tweets
  "Have you seen the Twitter account of @BernardKeane yesterday? What an interesting chap he is."
  
  Thanks for that. Here's the original blog: http://guernseytrustvictims.blogspot.com/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Brendan (profile), 31 Mar 2011 @ 10:41pm
    
    Re: Re: Bernard Keane's tweets
    Quality:
    
    "So since everyone in the UK has stopped reading, we can report that Mr. ZAM is....MR. CHARLES MARTYN-HEMPHILL. (I hope that nobody in the UK cheated and read this section.)"
    
    Excellent.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2011 @ 5:09am

I smell a Super Duo:
Copyright Man
and Superinjunction Man save the day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vincent Clement (profile), 31 Mar 2011 @ 5:42am

Kenny Farquharson: Sir Fred Goodwin's superinjunction - Scotland on Sunday http://bit.ly/dI42Ko
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Devil's Coachman (profile), 31 Mar 2011 @ 5:56am

Well if it is Fred Goodwin, then it's likely true
I mean, let's face it, he screwed the pooch when he ran RBS, so that makes the financial and the sexual charges pretty credible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Ball (profile), 31 Mar 2011 @ 6:33am

Not public = not defamation
My understanding is that for statements to be defamatory, by definition they must be public. Just talking sh*t about someone to your friends and family isn't defamation. So if you're a plaintiff and you think an injunction like this is going to do you any good, you probably don't have a case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 31 Mar 2011 @ 12:06pm
  
  Re: Not public = not defamation
  Just talking sh*t about someone to your friends and family isn't defamation.
  
  How many friends do you have? Are they on Facebook?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
abc gum, 31 Mar 2011 @ 6:55am

UK 'Superinjunction' is Super Stupid

You can't explain that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 31 Mar 2011 @ 9:51am
  
  Re:
  Speech goes in, injunction comes out.
  
  Never a miscommunication.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Danny, 31 Mar 2011 @ 7:10am

Superinjunction?
I don't know about you folks but this sounds childish. I'm not talking about the topic at hand I'm talking about the word itself. Like "dare, dog dare, and double dog dare" childish. I can barely say the word with a straight face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 31 Mar 2011 @ 1:25pm
  
  Re: Superinjunction?
  That's it. You're on Double Secret Probation!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- pr, 1 Apr 2011 @ 2:30pm
  
  Re: Superinjunction?
  Next will be the super-duper-injunction, which will forbid you from even thinking about it. Anyone who ponders whether or not the subject in question is an embezzling pervert will have to strike himself in the face with construction lumber.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jay (profile), 31 Mar 2011 @ 2:05pm

I dont mean to split hairs but isnt this just a normal injunction? Isn't the whole point of a super-injunction that the fact there is an injunction at all is supressed, if this were so the guardian would be in breach of it with their article...

Whether or not there should be the ability to injunct someone based on information that has already been published or not is one question.

Whether or not you should be able to stop someone saying there is even an injunction is another discussion...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 31 Mar 2011 @ 3:31pm
  
  Re:
  I dont mean to split hairs but isnt this just a normal injunction? Isn't the whole point of a super-injunction that the fact there is an injunction at all is supressed, if this were so the guardian would be in breach of it with their article...
  
  I think the difference is that with a normal injunction, they'd be able to tell you who or what they can't talk about. With this gamma-ray enhanced injunction, they can't even tell you that much.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - vivaelamor (profile), 1 Apr 2011 @ 5:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    "I think the difference is that with a normal injunction, they'd be able to tell you who or what they can't talk about. With this gamma-ray enhanced injunction, they can't even tell you that much."
    
    Wikipedia agrees with Jay, but I'm unsure if there is an official definition or if that is based on how the term was used in news stories (too lazy to read citations).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]