Anorak | Imogen Thomas’s Gag: When Secrecy Becomes A Tyranny

Imogen Thomas’s Gag: When Secrecy Becomes A Tyranny

by | 21st, May 2011

IN response to Anna Leach’s article on the allegation that a footballer is suing Twitter over his name being linked to an alleged super-injunction banning Imogen Thomas from naming him in an alleged affair, Alan writes:

It appears to many that the use of super-injunctions are the preserve of the super-wealthy to protect their privacy. There is no Privacy Law in Britain and lawyers acting on behalf of the applicants have been going to the High Court (English) to seek super-injunctions using an interpretation of the Human Rights Act 1998.

The beauty of that wheeze is the HRA also covers Scotland and Northern Ireland which have their own judicial systems and decisions taken by the entirely separate English High Court are binding on Courts and Judges which have had no part in the original decision.

One section covers the rights of an individual to have a private life.

Some English High Court Justices (around 5 or 6 of them in total) have been persuaded of the validity of the argument and granted injunctions which prevent the media naming the applicant, the nature of the injunction or even the fact an injunction exists. This is because the Judges are using the Act in the way they think it was written. Some Parliamentarians (politicians) who passed the Law say this situation was not the intention.

To many that degree of secrecy becomes a tyranny. I am in that position and find the use of the Human Rights Act in this way to be unrepresentative and elitist , in fact the very opposite of what a Human Rights Acts (defence and protection of all) was meant to achieve.


You have already read 1 premium article for free today
Access immediately the premium content with Multipass

Or come back tomorrow

Posted: 21st, May 2011 | In: News Comment | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink