COMMENT: Privacy injunction to stop media reporting police investigation into businessman 'is dangerous and needs to stop'

The recent High Court ruling on ERY v Associated Newspapers concerns a very wealthy businessman who wants to stop the public knowing that he has been questioned by police under caution.

Before an interview is given under caution, the police must be satisfied that there are reasonable, objective grounds to suspect the interviewee of an offence, based on known facts or information.

ERY’s company is being investigated for financial crime.

He claims that his being interviewed is private information that he is entitled to protect under Article 8 – the section of the European Convention on Human Rights that became part of the law of this country following the passing of the Human Rights Act in 1998 – which protects the rights of an individual’s “private and family life, home and correspondence”.

ERY applied for an injunction to prevent the publishers of the Mail on Sunday and the Daily Mail publishing any information concerning the investigation by the police into him for, presumably, financial crime (even the nature of the investigation is covered by the injunction).

He is, apparently, very well known to the public and so closely associated with the company that any reference to his company being investigated would lead people to believe that he personally was suspected of financial crime.

Most people will be aware of Article 8 in the context of stories about the sex lives of public figures, often footballers.

It has frequently been argued that there is no ‘public interest’ in such stories, distinguishing them from investigative journalism.

The court in this case specifically noted that the need to protect the role and importance of the press as a ‘public watchdog’ has been reiterated on numerous occasions, not just in our courts, but even in Strasbourg.

Yet it granted the injunction that ERY asked for in this case, even though the judge decided there was no real risk that the publishers would publish the fact ERY had been interviewed by the police.

Why? And does it matter?

Privacy injunctions are applied for by individuals who have secrets. Since 1998 the ‘private information’ they are looking to protect has widened from what might be generally accepted to be personal, such as medical information, to encompass anything that might be seen to be embarrassing.

Most recently, claimants have argued that the fact of an arrest should be treated as private information, even though ‘innocent until proved guilty’ is widely understood under English law.

It was accepted by the judge in this case that the publisher should not be prevented from publishing the fact that ERY’s company was being investigated and naming that company: it was also accepted by the judge that the publishers had decided they would not publish the fact that ERY had been questioned as part of that story.

But ERY argued that because of the position he held in the company and because of his public prominence, any story about the company being under investigation would be understood by readers to be a reference to an investigation of him personally.

The injunction was granted to protect him from that inference.

So, if a suspicious reader is capable of reading into a report of the investigation into the company that ERY is also being investigated, the publishers risk being found in breach of the injunction.

The consequence is that the publishers risk imprisonment or sequestration of assets if they get it wrong. The fact is that ERY has been interviewed under caution.

If there was no suspicion that he was involved in ‘serious financial crime’ the publisher could have made that clear in the body of the article and would not risk being in contempt of court. But the publisher knows that isn’t true.

It used to be the case that individuals would claim they were the face of their company to try to bring a claim for enhanced damages for libel – under libel law, only an individual, not a company, suffers hurt feelings.

In this case, the same notion has been relied on to extend privacy rights into the sphere of business activity with the result that the report of a police investigation involving a large number of officers in raids on multiple premises and a considerable number of arrests carries the risk of jail for not only the publisher of the Mail on Sunday and Daily Mail, but any other publisher with notice of the injunction.

There is no right for a public figure not to be embarrassed.

This is dangerous. It matters. It needs to stop.

Caroline Kean is a partner at law firm Wiggin and specialises in media law and litigation.

Comments

2 thoughts on “COMMENT: Privacy injunction to stop media reporting police investigation into businessman 'is dangerous and needs to stop'”

  1. ★★★★★
    i am getting $100 to $130 consistently by wearing down facebook. i was jobless 2 years earlier , however now i have a really extraordinary occupation with which i make my own specific pay and that is adequate for me to meet my expences. I am really appreciative to God and my director. In case you have to make your life straightforward with this pay like my , click the association underneath to check my purpose of interests

    ➥➥➥➥ w­­w­­w­­.­­D­­i­­y­­C­­a­­s­­h­­4­­4­­.­­c­­o­­m

  2. Has it ever occurred to the media that the way to stop these injunctions being applied for is to pursue the lawyers who do so, and the judges who grant them. This is precisely what the charge of professional misconduct, or misconduct on the bench, is for and it is why the Bar Standards Board and the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority and the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office exist.
    The regulatory system is there for a reason so why don’t you use it instead of publishing pointless whinges like this article? If a solicitor instructs a barrister to apply for an injunction preventing reporting for what you deem to be no good reason then report the solicitor and the barrister to their professional bodies and tell the judge who has been allocated the case that you have made the report, and you want him to stay the case until the complaint has been heard. Tell the Chairman of the Bar and the President of the Law Society that you will make their members’ lives a misery and if necessary end their professional careers if this abuse of press freedom to report in the public interest does not cease immediately and permanently.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

four × 1 =

CLOSE
CLOSE