Image
© unknownProtecting privacy or destroying freedom of speech?
Super-injunctions. Hard to know where to start, really. Because it's all a bit of a mess. I guess most people know by now that there are injunctions and there are 'super-injunctions'.

Super-injunctions differ from ordinary injunctions because, in layman's language, it is a contempt of court, potentially punishable by imprisonment, to divulge the existence of such an injunction.

The Ryan Giggs case has made privacy super-injunctions highly controversial (and possibly undesirable, but that's another matter). The internet has called into question the very nature of the enforcibility of such injunctions.

So serious is the issue surrounding privacy injunctions and super-injunctions that it has led directly led to tensions between the legislature and the executive on one hand, and the judiciary on the other. A convincing case is being made that judges are making law rather than enforcing it.

As usual, these issues are not subject to the same white heat of scrutiny here as they are nationally. However, thanks to TUV leader Jim Allister, we now know that at least four super-injunctions have been granted by the Northern Ireland High Court since 2007.

Mr Allister, who solicited the information from Justice Minister David Ford in an Assembly answer, quite properly said he hoped the information "may stimulate some necessary debate" on the issue.

"The mystery and secrecy surrounding injunctive relief is generally not healthy, nor does it sit comfortably with the transparency expectations of a modern society," Mr Allister said.

"Thus, establishing that there have been four 'super-injunctions' in Northern Ireland contributes in a small way to redressing the balance of secrecy."

Mr Allister has unwittingly kicked off the latest number one topic of conversation amongst the chattering classes in Northern Ireland.

It's a guessing game and it centres on who 'got' the four super-injunctions.

Even senior political and legal figures have been heard to participate. I've heard it being played in meetings, in coffee bars, over dinner tables and hinted at in social media.

I know of two, because newspapers published by this company have been made aware of them by lawyers for the plaintiffs.

I can't, of course, go into details, even though I hear the food at Maghaberry these days is better than tolerable.

I don't know any facts surrounding the other two at all. Which means newspapers like this one could easily blunder in and break the super-injunction without realising it.

Is complete and total ignorance that something exists a defence against a contempt arising from a privacy super-injunction?

Good luck to the person who tests that one.