First, Iman al-Obeidi was hauled off and perhaps held hostage after accusing members of Moammar Gadhafi’s militia of rape—now, she’s being sued. “Oh, yeah, they have filed a [civil] case,” a government spokesperson tells the New York Times . “The boys who she accused of rape are bringing a case…
Continue reading …
Jury sees images of the newspaper seller lying on the ground after being struck by a police officer at the G20 protests Disturbing new footage that shows Ian Tomlinson lying motionless on the ground shortly after being struck by a policeman at the G20 protests was shown to a jury during the opening day of the inquest into his death. Members of his family wept when the footage was played, revealing previously unseen images of the 47-year-old newspaper seller lying on the ground, being tended to by a female medical student. The jury of 11, attending the International Dispute Resolution Centre in Fleet Street, London, was shown footage of Tomlinson and PC Simon Harwood, the officer filmed striking him moments before his collapse on 1 April 2009. Judge Peter Thornton QC, sitting as assistant deputy coroner, told the jury that Harwood, of the Met police’s territorial support group, was not on trial. “This is an inquest, not a public inquiry. But every inquest is an inquiry into the death. That involves looking at the circumstances in which the death arose, but not all of the much broader issues which a public inquiry might consider.” Thornton said that Harwood’s shoving of Tomlinson at 7.20pm on Royal Exchange Buildings was unlikely to be contested. The jury saw footage of Harwood striking Tomlinson with a baton and pushing him hard in the back. Tomlinson was propelled and fell to the ground. “PC Harwood accepted later that he did those things, and he gave his reasons for doing them,” Thornton said. Tomlinson then walked about 100 metres along Cornhill before collapsing. He was pronounced dead at 8.10pm. Thornton said there was likely to be “controversy” over the medical evidence. Freddy Patel, the pathologist who did the first postmortem examination, concluded that Tomlinson died of coronary heart disease. Two other pathologists, Nat Cary and Kenneth Shorrock, said he died of internal bleeding. “It is likely to be a controversial area in the inquest,” Thornton said. “There is likely to be controversy about the finding by Dr Patel in the first postmortem about the presence of fluid in the abdomen and the extent it contained blood.” The jury was shown footage compiled by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, including video from CCTV cameras, bystanders and police helicopters. It included images obtained from trawling websites such as YouTube and was shown in two batches. The first batch showed Tomlinson at Monument tube station just before 7pm. He was repeatedly turned away from police cordons blocking his route home, before he appeared, at about 7.20pm, on Royal Exchange Buildings. He collapsed on the pavement at Cornhill about three minutes later. Lucy Apps, a medical student, went to his aid. Video showed riot officers arriving on the scene and moving her away. There was no evidence that protesters impeded police medics from treating Tomlinson, who was carried away by police minutes later. The second film batch followed Harwood. Fifteen minutes before he struck Tomlinson he tried to arrest a protester, dragging him into the crowd by his jacket. Harwood could have had confrontations with at least two other people in the minutes before his encounter with Tomlinson. Among the witnesses giving evidence at the hearing was Barry Smith, an Evening Standard seller, who had worked with Tomlinson for more than 20 years. He said Tomlinson had left the stall earlier than usual that day because they had run out of newspapers. Tomlinson’s widow, Julia Tomlinson, and his stepson, Paul King, also gave evidence at the inquest. Both described a loving father generous with his time and money, who was “idolised” by his four daughters and five stepchildren. Both also spoke of Tomlinson’s problem with alcoholism. Julia said: “He would always walk with his hands in his pockets and his head down, even from the living room to the kitchen. This was partly because he had a limited use of one of his hands from an old injury. But I think this was also because he didn’t like to impose himself – he didn’t want no bother.” Ian Tomlinson Police Paul Lewis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Jury sees images of the newspaper seller lying on the ground after being struck by a police officer at the G20 protests Disturbing new footage that shows Ian Tomlinson lying motionless on the ground shortly after being struck by a policeman at the G20 protests was shown to a jury during the opening day of the inquest into his death. Members of his family wept when the footage was played, revealing previously unseen images of the 47-year-old newspaper seller lying on the ground, being tended to by a female medical student. The jury of 11, attending the International Dispute Resolution Centre in Fleet Street, London, was shown footage of Tomlinson and PC Simon Harwood, the officer filmed striking him moments before his collapse on 1 April 2009. Judge Peter Thornton QC, sitting as assistant deputy coroner, told the jury that Harwood, of the Met police’s territorial support group, was not on trial. “This is an inquest, not a public inquiry. But every inquest is an inquiry into the death. That involves looking at the circumstances in which the death arose, but not all of the much broader issues which a public inquiry might consider.” Thornton said that Harwood’s shoving of Tomlinson at 7.20pm on Royal Exchange Buildings was unlikely to be contested. The jury saw footage of Harwood striking Tomlinson with a baton and pushing him hard in the back. Tomlinson was propelled and fell to the ground. “PC Harwood accepted later that he did those things, and he gave his reasons for doing them,” Thornton said. Tomlinson then walked about 100 metres along Cornhill before collapsing. He was pronounced dead at 8.10pm. Thornton said there was likely to be “controversy” over the medical evidence. Freddy Patel, the pathologist who did the first postmortem examination, concluded that Tomlinson died of coronary heart disease. Two other pathologists, Nat Cary and Kenneth Shorrock, said he died of internal bleeding. “It is likely to be a controversial area in the inquest,” Thornton said. “There is likely to be controversy about the finding by Dr Patel in the first postmortem about the presence of fluid in the abdomen and the extent it contained blood.” The jury was shown footage compiled by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, including video from CCTV cameras, bystanders and police helicopters. It included images obtained from trawling websites such as YouTube and was shown in two batches. The first batch showed Tomlinson at Monument tube station just before 7pm. He was repeatedly turned away from police cordons blocking his route home, before he appeared, at about 7.20pm, on Royal Exchange Buildings. He collapsed on the pavement at Cornhill about three minutes later. Lucy Apps, a medical student, went to his aid. Video showed riot officers arriving on the scene and moving her away. There was no evidence that protesters impeded police medics from treating Tomlinson, who was carried away by police minutes later. The second film batch followed Harwood. Fifteen minutes before he struck Tomlinson he tried to arrest a protester, dragging him into the crowd by his jacket. Harwood could have had confrontations with at least two other people in the minutes before his encounter with Tomlinson. Among the witnesses giving evidence at the hearing was Barry Smith, an Evening Standard seller, who had worked with Tomlinson for more than 20 years. He said Tomlinson had left the stall earlier than usual that day because they had run out of newspapers. Tomlinson’s widow, Julia Tomlinson, and his stepson, Paul King, also gave evidence at the inquest. Both described a loving father generous with his time and money, who was “idolised” by his four daughters and five stepchildren. Both also spoke of Tomlinson’s problem with alcoholism. Julia said: “He would always walk with his hands in his pockets and his head down, even from the living room to the kitchen. This was partly because he had a limited use of one of his hands from an old injury. But I think this was also because he didn’t like to impose himself – he didn’t want no bother.” Ian Tomlinson Police Paul Lewis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Jury sees images of the newspaper seller lying on the ground after being struck by a police officer at the G20 protests Disturbing new footage that shows Ian Tomlinson lying motionless on the ground shortly after being struck by a policeman at the G20 protests was shown to a jury during the opening day of the inquest into his death. Members of his family wept when the footage was played, revealing previously unseen images of the 47-year-old newspaper seller lying on the ground, being tended to by a female medical student. The jury of 11, attending the International Dispute Resolution Centre in Fleet Street, London, was shown footage of Tomlinson and PC Simon Harwood, the officer filmed striking him moments before his collapse on 1 April 2009. Judge Peter Thornton QC, sitting as assistant deputy coroner, told the jury that Harwood, of the Met police’s territorial support group, was not on trial. “This is an inquest, not a public inquiry. But every inquest is an inquiry into the death. That involves looking at the circumstances in which the death arose, but not all of the much broader issues which a public inquiry might consider.” Thornton said that Harwood’s shoving of Tomlinson at 7.20pm on Royal Exchange Buildings was unlikely to be contested. The jury saw footage of Harwood striking Tomlinson with a baton and pushing him hard in the back. Tomlinson was propelled and fell to the ground. “PC Harwood accepted later that he did those things, and he gave his reasons for doing them,” Thornton said. Tomlinson then walked about 100 metres along Cornhill before collapsing. He was pronounced dead at 8.10pm. Thornton said there was likely to be “controversy” over the medical evidence. Freddy Patel, the pathologist who did the first postmortem examination, concluded that Tomlinson died of coronary heart disease. Two other pathologists, Nat Cary and Kenneth Shorrock, said he died of internal bleeding. “It is likely to be a controversial area in the inquest,” Thornton said. “There is likely to be controversy about the finding by Dr Patel in the first postmortem about the presence of fluid in the abdomen and the extent it contained blood.” The jury was shown footage compiled by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, including video from CCTV cameras, bystanders and police helicopters. It included images obtained from trawling websites such as YouTube and was shown in two batches. The first batch showed Tomlinson at Monument tube station just before 7pm. He was repeatedly turned away from police cordons blocking his route home, before he appeared, at about 7.20pm, on Royal Exchange Buildings. He collapsed on the pavement at Cornhill about three minutes later. Lucy Apps, a medical student, went to his aid. Video showed riot officers arriving on the scene and moving her away. There was no evidence that protesters impeded police medics from treating Tomlinson, who was carried away by police minutes later. The second film batch followed Harwood. Fifteen minutes before he struck Tomlinson he tried to arrest a protester, dragging him into the crowd by his jacket. Harwood could have had confrontations with at least two other people in the minutes before his encounter with Tomlinson. Among the witnesses giving evidence at the hearing was Barry Smith, an Evening Standard seller, who had worked with Tomlinson for more than 20 years. He said Tomlinson had left the stall earlier than usual that day because they had run out of newspapers. Tomlinson’s widow, Julia Tomlinson, and his stepson, Paul King, also gave evidence at the inquest. Both described a loving father generous with his time and money, who was “idolised” by his four daughters and five stepchildren. Both also spoke of Tomlinson’s problem with alcoholism. Julia said: “He would always walk with his hands in his pockets and his head down, even from the living room to the kitchen. This was partly because he had a limited use of one of his hands from an old injury. But I think this was also because he didn’t like to impose himself – he didn’t want no bother.” Ian Tomlinson Police Paul Lewis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Latest attempt by UK courts to censor internet material has led to claims free speech is being further eroded A wealthy financier involved in a family dispute has made British legal history by winning anonymity in a libel case. This latest court attempt to censor internet material has led to claims that free speech is being further eroded in Britain. In a novel extension of controversial superinjunctions, Mr Justice Tugendhat forbade anyone in Britain from identifying “Mr Z”, who claims to have been defamed by his relatives in a row over a multimillion pound family trust. The judge ordered that the relatives’ identities also be kept secret, and that no-one be allowed to detail allegations aired in the secret hearings in the high court in London. His ruling was published under the coded title ZAM v CFW and TFW. This extreme, court-ordered secrecy followed threats on behalf of Z’s relations to publicise their accusations globally on the internet, where they could not be suppressed. Z told the judge the allegations were “entirely false”, and he was being blackmailed. No defence was produced that the accusations were true. Shortly after Tugendhat issued the gagging order, a lengthy set of allegations appeared online. Supposedly posted by a blogger in Niger, they accused Zof misappropriating money from the trust fund and of a sex offence. The judge’s ruling means the Guardian cannot provide any information that would help locate the posting on the internet. But the online document itself would appear to be immune to British court rulings. Google says of its service, blogspot.com , that it usually only censors illegal or hate-speech postings, and provides: “a free service for communication, self-expression and freedom of speech”. People in other countries can continue to discuss the allegations. Sources claiming to be close to the man’s relatives told the Guardian that they were living in Italy, out of British jurisdiction. The “Niger blogger” had purportedly been sent court documents by accident, and could not now be prevented from circulating them. Superinjunctions, in which all details of court proceedings are concealed, have never been granted in cases of libel, as far as is known. They have been granted in kiss-and-tell or breach of confidence cases. A special legal committee investigating the controversial orders is due to report next month. In the most notorious case, the oil traders Trafigura last year briefly obtained a superinjunction against the Guardian to suppress a leaked report on its toxic waste dumping, which even prevented reporting proceedings in parliament. It is rare, though not unknown, for conventional injunctions to be granted in libel cases. These prevent the disputed allegations being repeated until a case is resolved. But it seems unprecedented, legal observers said, to in addition allow anonymity to all the parties. It is feared it may allow a flood of wealthy libel litigants to seek secrecy injunctions against the media. “This takes the epidemic of super-injunctions down a dangerous new path,” said John Kampfner, who heads the free speech body Index on Censorship, among the groups campaigning for reform of the libel laws. “Now they are being used not only to protect supposed privacy, but libel too.” Gavin Millar QC, a media specialist, said: “Courts are increasingly granting anonymity to claimants where withholding details of evidence used to be regarded as sufficient. This case seems to be more of the same. Open justice is suffering.” During the hearing on 3 March, Richard Spearman QC claimed it would be unfair to identify the financier, even though there was no truth in the allegations, because “the fact that [he] has had to seek relief would be capable of being made into a story in its own right and would be likely to lead to widespread speculation as to what story he has been concerned to prevent the defendants from telling”. The court was told that employers and other family members had been contacted with the allegations. Letters had been sent saying “Cleared for worldwide publication” and “on the verge of going viral” and mentioning the “worldwide web”. One letter said: “Will some evil person leak the entire proceedings and all the sordid details so that the irresponsible global media … can really get their teeth into them?” Mr Justice Tugendhat said in his ruling: “In this particular case, the public interest in open justice is better served by granting anonymity.” Superinjunctions: A threat to free speech? No one knows precisely how many superinjunctions have been issued. They are, by nature, secretive. An informed legal estimate is that as many as 20 have been granted in the UK over the past 18 months. Their notoriety stems from a case in October 2009 involving the oil trading firm Trafigura. The solicitors Carter Ruck warned the Guardian that it would be in contempt of court if it published a parliamentary question about the company. The extraordinary powers attributed to the gagging order triggered alarm about threats to freedom of expression and transparency of justice. Some lawyers caution that the term “superinjunction” is used too loosely. It might be narrowly defined as a court order prohibiting its existence from being revealed and in which the parties are in some way or another rendered anonymous. In recent months, because of criticism of their clandestine nature, judges have become reluctant to grant superinjunctions so readily and shown a preference for anonymised orders where few details are provided. The Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, is chairing a committee examining the use of super injunctions. It is due to report before Easter. In a speech earlier this month, Lord Neuberger recognised that there is a problem. “The concern over super injunctions is that they have, as Professor Zuckerman has put it, developed into an entirely secret form of procedure,” he said. “As he put it, ‘English administration of justice has not [previously] allowed’, that is ‘for the entire legal process to be conducted out of the public view and for its very existence to be kept permanently secret under pain of contempt. “English law has not known of such a procedure – of secret justice – since 5 July 1641, when the Long Parliament abolished the Court of Star Chamber.” Elsewhere Zuckerman has attacked super injunctions as “curiousity suppressant orders” that undermine the rule of law. Another variant is the hyperinjunction, a term used for an order which attempted to ban an individual from contacting his MP. The Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming, who used the protection of parliamentary privilege to talk about it, said the order dated from 2005. Many superinjunctions relate to prominent footballers to prevent allegations about their private lives being published. An injunction awarded to Chelsea captain John Terry preventing the reporting of an alleged affair was repealed earlier this year. Owen Bowcott Libel reform Internet Media law David Leigh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Latest attempt by UK courts to censor internet material has led to claims free speech is being further eroded A wealthy financier involved in a family dispute has made British legal history by winning anonymity in a libel case. This latest court attempt to censor internet material has led to claims that free speech is being further eroded in Britain. In a novel extension of controversial superinjunctions, Mr Justice Tugendhat forbade anyone in Britain from identifying “Mr Z”, who claims to have been defamed by his relatives in a row over a multimillion pound family trust. The judge ordered that the relatives’ identities also be kept secret, and that no-one be allowed to detail allegations aired in the secret hearings in the high court in London. His ruling was published under the coded title ZAM v CFW and TFW. This extreme, court-ordered secrecy followed threats on behalf of Z’s relations to publicise their accusations globally on the internet, where they could not be suppressed. Z told the judge the allegations were “entirely false”, and he was being blackmailed. No defence was produced that the accusations were true. Shortly after Tugendhat issued the gagging order, a lengthy set of allegations appeared online. Supposedly posted by a blogger in Niger, they accused Zof misappropriating money from the trust fund and of a sex offence. The judge’s ruling means the Guardian cannot provide any information that would help locate the posting on the internet. But the online document itself would appear to be immune to British court rulings. Google says of its service, blogspot.com , that it usually only censors illegal or hate-speech postings, and provides: “a free service for communication, self-expression and freedom of speech”. People in other countries can continue to discuss the allegations. Sources claiming to be close to the man’s relatives told the Guardian that they were living in Italy, out of British jurisdiction. The “Niger blogger” had purportedly been sent court documents by accident, and could not now be prevented from circulating them. Superinjunctions, in which all details of court proceedings are concealed, have never been granted in cases of libel, as far as is known. They have been granted in kiss-and-tell or breach of confidence cases. A special legal committee investigating the controversial orders is due to report next month. In the most notorious case, the oil traders Trafigura last year briefly obtained a superinjunction against the Guardian to suppress a leaked report on its toxic waste dumping, which even prevented reporting proceedings in parliament. It is rare, though not unknown, for conventional injunctions to be granted in libel cases. These prevent the disputed allegations being repeated until a case is resolved. But it seems unprecedented, legal observers said, to in addition allow anonymity to all the parties. It is feared it may allow a flood of wealthy libel litigants to seek secrecy injunctions against the media. “This takes the epidemic of super-injunctions down a dangerous new path,” said John Kampfner, who heads the free speech body Index on Censorship, among the groups campaigning for reform of the libel laws. “Now they are being used not only to protect supposed privacy, but libel too.” Gavin Millar QC, a media specialist, said: “Courts are increasingly granting anonymity to claimants where withholding details of evidence used to be regarded as sufficient. This case seems to be more of the same. Open justice is suffering.” During the hearing on 3 March, Richard Spearman QC claimed it would be unfair to identify the financier, even though there was no truth in the allegations, because “the fact that [he] has had to seek relief would be capable of being made into a story in its own right and would be likely to lead to widespread speculation as to what story he has been concerned to prevent the defendants from telling”. The court was told that employers and other family members had been contacted with the allegations. Letters had been sent saying “Cleared for worldwide publication” and “on the verge of going viral” and mentioning the “worldwide web”. One letter said: “Will some evil person leak the entire proceedings and all the sordid details so that the irresponsible global media … can really get their teeth into them?” Mr Justice Tugendhat said in his ruling: “In this particular case, the public interest in open justice is better served by granting anonymity.” Superinjunctions: A threat to free speech? No one knows precisely how many superinjunctions have been issued. They are, by nature, secretive. An informed legal estimate is that as many as 20 have been granted in the UK over the past 18 months. Their notoriety stems from a case in October 2009 involving the oil trading firm Trafigura. The solicitors Carter Ruck warned the Guardian that it would be in contempt of court if it published a parliamentary question about the company. The extraordinary powers attributed to the gagging order triggered alarm about threats to freedom of expression and transparency of justice. Some lawyers caution that the term “superinjunction” is used too loosely. It might be narrowly defined as a court order prohibiting its existence from being revealed and in which the parties are in some way or another rendered anonymous. In recent months, because of criticism of their clandestine nature, judges have become reluctant to grant superinjunctions so readily and shown a preference for anonymised orders where few details are provided. The Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, is chairing a committee examining the use of super injunctions. It is due to report before Easter. In a speech earlier this month, Lord Neuberger recognised that there is a problem. “The concern over super injunctions is that they have, as Professor Zuckerman has put it, developed into an entirely secret form of procedure,” he said. “As he put it, ‘English administration of justice has not [previously] allowed’, that is ‘for the entire legal process to be conducted out of the public view and for its very existence to be kept permanently secret under pain of contempt. “English law has not known of such a procedure – of secret justice – since 5 July 1641, when the Long Parliament abolished the Court of Star Chamber.” Elsewhere Zuckerman has attacked super injunctions as “curiousity suppressant orders” that undermine the rule of law. Another variant is the hyperinjunction, a term used for an order which attempted to ban an individual from contacting his MP. The Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming, who used the protection of parliamentary privilege to talk about it, said the order dated from 2005. Many superinjunctions relate to prominent footballers to prevent allegations about their private lives being published. An injunction awarded to Chelsea captain John Terry preventing the reporting of an alleged affair was repealed earlier this year. Owen Bowcott Libel reform Internet Media law David Leigh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Latest attempt by UK courts to censor internet material has led to claims free speech is being further eroded A wealthy financier involved in a family dispute has made British legal history by winning anonymity in a libel case. This latest court attempt to censor internet material has led to claims that free speech is being further eroded in Britain. In a novel extension of controversial superinjunctions, Mr Justice Tugendhat forbade anyone in Britain from identifying “Mr Z”, who claims to have been defamed by his relatives in a row over a multimillion pound family trust. The judge ordered that the relatives’ identities also be kept secret, and that no-one be allowed to detail allegations aired in the secret hearings in the high court in London. His ruling was published under the coded title ZAM v CFW and TFW. This extreme, court-ordered secrecy followed threats on behalf of Z’s relations to publicise their accusations globally on the internet, where they could not be suppressed. Z told the judge the allegations were “entirely false”, and he was being blackmailed. No defence was produced that the accusations were true. Shortly after Tugendhat issued the gagging order, a lengthy set of allegations appeared online. Supposedly posted by a blogger in Niger, they accused Zof misappropriating money from the trust fund and of a sex offence. The judge’s ruling means the Guardian cannot provide any information that would help locate the posting on the internet. But the online document itself would appear to be immune to British court rulings. Google says of its service, blogspot.com , that it usually only censors illegal or hate-speech postings, and provides: “a free service for communication, self-expression and freedom of speech”. People in other countries can continue to discuss the allegations. Sources claiming to be close to the man’s relatives told the Guardian that they were living in Italy, out of British jurisdiction. The “Niger blogger” had purportedly been sent court documents by accident, and could not now be prevented from circulating them. Superinjunctions, in which all details of court proceedings are concealed, have never been granted in cases of libel, as far as is known. They have been granted in kiss-and-tell or breach of confidence cases. A special legal committee investigating the controversial orders is due to report next month. In the most notorious case, the oil traders Trafigura last year briefly obtained a superinjunction against the Guardian to suppress a leaked report on its toxic waste dumping, which even prevented reporting proceedings in parliament. It is rare, though not unknown, for conventional injunctions to be granted in libel cases. These prevent the disputed allegations being repeated until a case is resolved. But it seems unprecedented, legal observers said, to in addition allow anonymity to all the parties. It is feared it may allow a flood of wealthy libel litigants to seek secrecy injunctions against the media. “This takes the epidemic of super-injunctions down a dangerous new path,” said John Kampfner, who heads the free speech body Index on Censorship, among the groups campaigning for reform of the libel laws. “Now they are being used not only to protect supposed privacy, but libel too.” Gavin Millar QC, a media specialist, said: “Courts are increasingly granting anonymity to claimants where withholding details of evidence used to be regarded as sufficient. This case seems to be more of the same. Open justice is suffering.” During the hearing on 3 March, Richard Spearman QC claimed it would be unfair to identify the financier, even though there was no truth in the allegations, because “the fact that [he] has had to seek relief would be capable of being made into a story in its own right and would be likely to lead to widespread speculation as to what story he has been concerned to prevent the defendants from telling”. The court was told that employers and other family members had been contacted with the allegations. Letters had been sent saying “Cleared for worldwide publication” and “on the verge of going viral” and mentioning the “worldwide web”. One letter said: “Will some evil person leak the entire proceedings and all the sordid details so that the irresponsible global media … can really get their teeth into them?” Mr Justice Tugendhat said in his ruling: “In this particular case, the public interest in open justice is better served by granting anonymity.” Superinjunctions: A threat to free speech? No one knows precisely how many superinjunctions have been issued. They are, by nature, secretive. An informed legal estimate is that as many as 20 have been granted in the UK over the past 18 months. Their notoriety stems from a case in October 2009 involving the oil trading firm Trafigura. The solicitors Carter Ruck warned the Guardian that it would be in contempt of court if it published a parliamentary question about the company. The extraordinary powers attributed to the gagging order triggered alarm about threats to freedom of expression and transparency of justice. Some lawyers caution that the term “superinjunction” is used too loosely. It might be narrowly defined as a court order prohibiting its existence from being revealed and in which the parties are in some way or another rendered anonymous. In recent months, because of criticism of their clandestine nature, judges have become reluctant to grant superinjunctions so readily and shown a preference for anonymised orders where few details are provided. The Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, is chairing a committee examining the use of super injunctions. It is due to report before Easter. In a speech earlier this month, Lord Neuberger recognised that there is a problem. “The concern over super injunctions is that they have, as Professor Zuckerman has put it, developed into an entirely secret form of procedure,” he said. “As he put it, ‘English administration of justice has not [previously] allowed’, that is ‘for the entire legal process to be conducted out of the public view and for its very existence to be kept permanently secret under pain of contempt. “English law has not known of such a procedure – of secret justice – since 5 July 1641, when the Long Parliament abolished the Court of Star Chamber.” Elsewhere Zuckerman has attacked super injunctions as “curiousity suppressant orders” that undermine the rule of law. Another variant is the hyperinjunction, a term used for an order which attempted to ban an individual from contacting his MP. The Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming, who used the protection of parliamentary privilege to talk about it, said the order dated from 2005. Many superinjunctions relate to prominent footballers to prevent allegations about their private lives being published. An injunction awarded to Chelsea captain John Terry preventing the reporting of an alleged affair was repealed earlier this year. Owen Bowcott Libel reform Internet Media law David Leigh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Even before he found himself thrown in the brig for allegedly handing over classified material to WikiLeaks, Bradley Manning led a troubled life in rural Oklahoma. PBS talks to Manning’s family and friends, including a lengthy interview with father Brian Manning, and discovered that as a child, Manning had few…
Continue reading …Syria’s Cabinet has stepped down, and President Bashar Assad accepted the resignation following a meeting today, according to state-run television. It’s the latest concession by the government aimed at appeasing more than a week of mass protests. Assad is expected to address the nation in the next 24 hours to…
Continue reading …
The world-famous actor was also the world’s biggest-selling celebrity perfumer – and she had a genuine flair for the business Hollywood icon Elizabeth Taylor’s obituaries may have praised her acting and charity work, but it seems they left out one thing – the “most beautiful woman in the world” was also the world’s biggest-selling celebrity perfumer . The actor left an estimated $600m – $1bn fortune, largely the yield of her scent empire, it was revealed yesterday. In 1987 Taylor invented the “celebrity perfume” franchise with her first fragrance, Passion, and released her last, Violet Eyes, in 2010. But while today such merchandise is often the result of a popstar turning up to a photoshoot and pointing at a bottle, Taylor’s had a genuine flair. A shrewd businesswoman, she teamed up with the respected Elizabeth Arden company and supervised the entire collection of 11 perfumes, even when her health failed. Unusually, she also always wore her own creation, the top-selling White Diamonds (actor Richard Harris was allegedly kicked out of Taylor’s mansion for drinking it), and never took her side job for granted – perhaps because perfumery gave her a fatter paycheck than Hollywood ever did. But how could an actor who had seldom worked in her last decades, and whose beauty had long since been lost to illness and obesity, continue to shift more perfume than Britney and JLo at the peak of their powers? It’s simple – Taylor represented true glamour at a time when stars are divided between the po-faced elite and the downmarket oversharers. Nobody wants to smell of soy lattes, yoga mats and macrobiotic baby food. Much less beef curries, Prozac and tears. Taylor instead offered a heady world where men were alpha and women were unapologetically, lethally, feminine. Yet Richard Burton’s observation that Taylor was “too bloody much” could just as accurately have been levelled at her potent scents. They pulled no punches and made no allowances for modernity, even while insipid unisex fragrances dominated the market in the 90s. Elizabeth Arden has announced that it has no plans to retire the range in the wake of Taylor’s death. Rightly so. Taylor’s perfumes still offer us the star quality we crave, and represent a woman whose memory will linger long after they fade. Elizabeth Taylor Sali Hughes guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …