Media law and ethics » privacy injunctions

Gideon Benaim: Payments for private information and the regulation of journalism

jtownend — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 08:59:41 +0000

Gideon Benaim, partner at Michael Simkins LLP (formerly of Schillings), has responded to my question about the potential regulation of payments for private information, in a blog post for Inforrm. He argues that “unless there is a legitimate public interest then private information should only be disclosed with the consent of everyone involved“:

This is, I think, something which a new regulatory code should spell out. Payment for stories should only be made when there is no alternative and the public interest requires it. Is this really an unfair proposal? Of course not, and it is in fact the law, despite it being largely ignored by the tabloids.

Full post at this link…

He previously responded to questions about the reporting/tracking of privacy injunctions here.

Reporting privacy injunctions: a response from Gideon Benaim

jtownend — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 08:09:59 +0000

I recently asked a couple of questions about reporting anonymised privacy injunctions, following a piece by Gideon Benaim in the Guardian. Benaim, a partner at Michael Simkins LLP, has responded with a full blog post response, which is published on Inforrm here. He argues:

It isn’t necessary to publish information about specific cases contemporaneously, nor to publish to the world at large at any time the “not so basic” details of a specific case, in the way that the courts have started to do. The Practice Direction can be amended to oblige practitioners to provide the required basic information to a central office in the High Court. Transparency is possible through statistics without needing to draw attention to individuals at the time they obtain the injunction.

I’ve left a comment below the piece, asking whether the open justice principle in fact requires the publication of basic detail about contemporaneous privacy judgments, which mimics a question put by Edward Thompson in the Journal of Media Law last December, in relation to cameras in court. I am not attempting to provide an answer at this stage, but am interested in hearing what other people think.

Analysis: Privacy cases re-visited, a year on from Super Injunction Spring - Judith Townend

jtownend — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 07:08:49 +0000

Reblogged from Inforrm's Blog:

A year on from the introduction of the Master of the Rolls' Practice Guidance, six privacy injunctions have been discharged, but with the claimant's anonymity maintained in each case. The British media, however, hasn't had much to say.

Law and Media Round Up - 30 July 2012

jtownend — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 09:09:40 +0000

Reblogged from Inforrm's Blog:

This is the final Inforrm Law and Media Round Up before the summer. The Parliamentary recess has begun and the Trinity legal term ends tomorrow - the Michaelmas legal term does not start until October. Over the next couple of months the courts and parliament will be quiet and Inforrm will be taking a summer break.