Legal points on naming Ryan Giggs.

[Leekbrookgull]

I can understand the legal arguement from the Sunday Herald in naming R/G (English law does not apply in Scotland ?) and on Monday the press/media could not name him,however once that M/P 'named' him what legally had changed,within minutes his name was everywhere public. So now it is out in the open why can The Sun not get the injunction lifted ?

 

[Rookie]

They are reporting what happened in parliament as they are free to do. The judge is keeping the injunction to 'protect his family' or some other such balls that he has come up with today

 

[seagulls4ever]

The Sun probably will now get the injunction lifted, based on the principle that once something is in the public domain there is no point in having an injunction to try and hide it. I suspect they will suceed when they next go to court.

Edit: just saw the above post, did they try again today and it was rejected?

As for the law, even though they have, it's not actually not clear whether the BBC, Sky, newspapers etc are allowed to name Ryan Giggs since he was named in Parliament. Privilege does not extend to anyone other than those in Parliament.

 

[Rookie]

The Sun probably will now get the injunction lifted, based on the principle that once something is in the public domain there is no point in having an injunction to try and hide it. I suspect they will suceed when they next go to court.

They tried to do that yesterday once it all had come out and the judge (albeit a different one to the usual injunction judge) kept it.

 

[seagulls4ever]

They tried to do that yesterday once it all had come out and the judge (albeit a different one to the usual injunction judge) kept it.

Oh. I thought that was before John Hemming named Giggs in Parliament.

I suspect they may try again now that the newspapers, etc now have him on their front-pages.

 

[Bold Seagull]

The injunction is still in place to protect the Giggs family from the 'sordid revelations'. Clearly we know who is involved, and clearly the Sun have their exclusive with Miss Wales which they are desperate to print. He cheated on his wife, that's down to her to sort out, I can't see how the exposure of the detail is in the public interest at all - hence the judge upheld the injunction. I really don't give a monkey's crap what actually happened.

 

[simmo]

The MP said that it was Ryan Giggs who had the super injunction (which is what all other media outlets revealed)

The Sun want to do a warts and all blow by blow account of the affair....no doubt.

That is why the injunction is still in place

 

[Tricky Dicky]

If you watched Sky News last night, they were very careful about what they could and couldn't say. I think they could now mention the names of the people involved, but not talk "about" anything that happened. Complete farce, and technology have overtaken the judiciary even further. Couldn't give a monkeys fart about what Giggs and some tart get up to, but there are more serious issues here.

 

[keaton]

The injunction's still in place, it's the superinjunction that's essentially been lifted now by him being named in H of P. Ie the fact that he has an injunction to stop a story being published can be published, the story itself can't

 

[simmo]

The injunction's still in place, it's the superinjunction that's essentially been lifted now by him being named in H of P. Ie the fact that he has an injunction to stop a story being published can be published, the story itself can't

Correct the injunction is the story. The "super" part of the injunction is the fact that you can't even say whom the individual is that has any injunction.

The MP using his H of P privelidges has blown the super part of the injunction out of the water.

 

[Rookie]

Correct the injunction is the story. The "super" part of the injunction is the fact that you can't even say whom the individual is that has any injunction.

The MP using his H of P privelidges has blown the super part of the injunction out of the water.

There was never a 'super injunction' because it was reported that an injunction existed. A super injunction involves no court report and not being able to identify the fact there is even an injunction

 

[glasfryn]

the laws an ass ...............oh wait a minute have I spelled that right

 

[Storer 68]

Because outside of Parliament, we are all still subject to the law. the injunction (as far as i know) still hasn't been lifted, so the only place that it can mentioned without fear of being in contempt of court is within the Palace of Westminster, where MPs and Lords enjoy absolute privilege.

 

[Brighton_Barca]

Privilege does not extend to anyone other than those in Parliament.

You can quote the comments made by the MP in Parliament as they are still protected under privileges.

 

[APACHE]

The press and tv are allowed to report what is said in parliment in connection with the naming but only his name, nothing else. Only them, not even i believe, lawyers can name him as they do not have the right.

 

[Lush]

Came across this, if anyone's that interested ...

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/1232.html

 

[GT49er]

The Sun want to do a warts and all blow by blow account of the affair....

So which of them has got warts, then? - Mr Legover Giggs or Miss Legs-apart Wales? Should Mrs. Giggs go for a check up?

 

[AMEXican Wave]

The injunction is still in place to protect the Giggs family from the 'sordid revelations'. Clearly we know who is involved, and clearly the Sun have their exclusive with Miss Wales which they are desperate to print. He cheated on his wife, that's down to her to sort out, I can't see how the exposure of the detail is in the public interest at all - hence the judge upheld the injunction. I really don't give a monkey's crap what actually happened.

Protect the family? Why should the Judicary ( funded by the people ) help withhold the truth?