The end of the celebrity injunction? Stars may face ‘higher threshold’ to block reporting on their activities under new free speech laws
- Bill of Rights Reforms Would Focus on Right to Freedom of Expression
- The changes will make it clear that courts should only allow measures that infringe on freedom of expression for “exceptional reasons”
- The injunction is one of the measures used to restrict freedom of expression
- Dominic Raab’s plans would force claimants to make more convincing arguments for injunction
Celebrities seeking to block reporting on their activities could face a “higher threshold” to obtain court injunctions under the new proposals.
Reforms planned under a new Bill of Rights would emphasize the right to freedom of expression – including the importance of “free and vibrant media”.
The changes will make it clear that courts should only allow measures that infringe on freedom of expression in “exceptional reasons”.
One of the most popular legal measures used to restrict free speech is injunction – a legal order obtained by asking a judge to ban specified information.
Injunctions have been widely used by celebrities and other personalities to keep extramarital affairs and other mischief out of the headlines.
Under current human rights law, introduced by Tony Blair’s Labor government, courts can grant an injunction if it is “likely” that a judge decides in a trial that the publication will not. should not be allowed.
Dominic Raab’s plans would force plaintiffs to make more convincing case for injunction
Dominic Raab’s plans would require plaintiffs to make a more convincing case for an injunction.
“The government is considering whether a higher threshold should be required,” said the consultation document.
He did not say what the new measure might be.
But in 2011, a judicial committee found that injunctions were issued “almost automatically” by “vacation or weekend judges, who had no particular expertise in the area of privacy” or a full understanding of. human rights law.
He noted that Lord Nicholls, a Lord Law, said in a 2005 ruling that the most appropriate threshold for an injunction should be “probably” or “more likely than not” – a significantly higher hurdle in legal terms.
Yesterday’s TUES consultation paper also exposed broader concerns about free speech, amid growing fears that “culture cancellation” would stifle legitimate debate.
Prime Minister’s official spokesman Boris Johnson said there were fears that a combination of privacy law “permitted” by human rights law and the “sensitivity of our society to opposing views “have” reduced part of the scope of the debate “.
Freedom of speech was “essential for our democracy,” the spokesperson said.
Prime Minister’s official spokesman Boris Johnson said there were fears that a combination of privacy law “permitted” by human rights law and the “sensitivity of our society to opposing views “have” reduced part of the scope of the debate “