Another week ends, and still the injunction remains in place forbidding the media in England and Wales from revealing the identity of the “Married celebrity couple”, one of whom was involved in a threesome with two other individuals. The Murdoch Sun has been protesting particularly loudly about this impediment to their ability to generate More And Bigger Sales Figures For Themselves Personally Now.
He has told “Guido’s servers are in the United States of America [and] this article is being typed in the Republic of Ireland … There are no physical assets in the UK, there is no digital equivalent of a printing press, no device that can be seized or smashed … Carter-Ruck have now instructed Johnsons, a Dublin law firm, and are threatening proceedings here in Ireland”. Let’s have a look at Esquire magazine’s profile, shall we?
Here, Edwin Smith tells of “The day I spend in the Guido Fawkes office in central London”, while Staines maintains his conceit that “the website is registered in the Caribbean tax haven of Nevis, while Staines is officially a resident in the Republic of Ireland”. But Smith also describes an office with “three monitors and a TV perpetually tuned to Sky News. Behind me, there are boxes with wires spewing out of them, a video camera, ring binders piled on top of one another”. No physical assets, eh?
over the paper’s inability to get the injunction lifted before the weekend. “A GAGGING order on the threesome scandal was like trying to “plug a hole in the dyke”, the Court of Appeal was told yesterday … And QC Gavin Millar - leading The Sun on Sunday’s legal team - said such attempts ‘tend to be hopeless’”.
Aw diddums! But do go on: “The newspaper yesterday asked three judges to lift a ban on naming the star and their celebrity spouse at the centre of the furoré … The court is now due to give its judgment on Monday, with the injunction in place in the meantime … Yet the story is available to almost two billion people worldwide after it was published in the US, China, Scotland, Italy, Spain, Ireland and on a popular UK blogging site”.
There you have it: the Sun says, in an article which would have to have been legalled prior to publication, that the Guido Fawkes blog is “a popular UK blogging site”. Paul Staines has been trying to prove otherwise this week. A screen shot has been included, just in case anyone realises what they’ve done and tries to delete the article. The people at Carter Ruck are welcome to use that screen shot in whatever way they wish.
Staines’ pals at the Sun may just have given Carter Ruck grounds to go after him. So I do hope he got the Murdoch doggies to underwrite his costs. Another fine mess, once again.
Saturday, 16 April 2016
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
A good reason for the law to look at these kinds of revelations from a legal perspective.
Havens and servers and legal loopholes need the same treatment as tax loopholes.
They need plugging.
Didn't the Sun check this with their Westminster correspondent?
One drawback is that who would trust The Sun to get the facts right on anything let alone their own contributors?
Another is that on the other side of the balance sheet there is a liability of that Tea Boy, Wickers, whose insipid brews tend to bring more flak upon themselves than their intended targets (thanks in part to Zelo Street).
Um, hasn't Zelo Street just told us where to find their names?
No link to the Fawkes blog was included, to avoid any claim that this post had breached the injunction.
I think Arnold is probably right. The exact terminology is not that one must not republish (as posting a link would effectively do), but wider in its scope:
"[A] third party with notice of the injunction, which assists a party to disobey it, may also be in contempt."
I'd say it was arguable that by telling readers exactly where to look, you are 'assisting' Mr Staines.
How can he make the point without including it?
"How can he make the point without including it?" He can't but I can't see the law regarding that a valid defence.
The injunction is pointless though, and I'd be surprised if it isn't lifted on Monday.
I think I know who its about and I've not visited Staines site.
People gave it out on Twitter.
There's a readily available Twitter hashtag which will furnish you with all the details.
If this is true : ""[A] third party with notice of the injunction, which assists a party to disobey it, may also be in contempt." then The Sun is bang to rights as well.
And if Staines thinks that being an Irish citizen living in the UK somehow exempts him from British law he is a bigger dickhead than we think. I'd love to see him in front of M'Lud expounding that theory.
Two things : News Corp hacks are now so slack they inadvertently dropped Staines in it or he is so loathed by them they did it deliberately.
His departure from Sun nation says a lot. No replacement role?
How to miss the point.
If he can prove he publish this article while in Ireland, on a site with servers stored in the US, than no, the UK law would not apply, even if he returned to the UK afterwards.
And for Zelo to chummy up to Carter Fuck like this.... you should be standing shoulder to shoulder with Paul.
Post a Comment