Blog: Ryan Giggs’ right to gag the press

Dedicating a picture of Ryan Giggs with only his eyes blocked with a black strip on its front page, the Scottish Sunday Herald of 22 May 2011 said : « Everyone knows that this is the footballer accused of using the courts to keep allegations of a sexual affair secret but we weren’t supposed to tell you about that… ».

Footballer Ryan Giggs 37, is a midfielder and Manchester United’s most senior player.  He was awarded an OBE in 2007 and named BBC Sports Personality of the Year 2009. Imogen Thomas, now 28, became Miss Wales in 2003.  But she jumped to fame by appearing in what is regarded as a disgusting and perverse Channel 4 reality show Big Brother in 2006.  She also became a glamour model and a sex symbol.  She was also previously the girl-friend of Tottenham Hotspur and England striker Jermain Defoe, and reported by Portuguese tabloid to have dated the Real Madrid striker Cristiano Ronaldo.

A married man, the footballer (Ryan Giggs) took out a Super Injunction to prevent Ms Thomas and the Sun newspaper from naming him in their alleged affair as well as from reporting the contents of the injunction.  In granting the injunction on 13 April 2011, Justice Eady said « It seemed to me that the (footballer) was fully entitled to the protection of anonymity. »  The Judge was also made aware that The Sun, which is well-known for publishing what is regarded as garbage and topless women, intended to publish their alleged affair for six months with Ms Thomas’ photographs « at or near hotels ».  Judge Eady told the court : « It seems... that The Sun was ready to take advantage of these prearranged meetings in order to be able to put forward the claim that it was The Sun which had found him 'romping with a busty Big Brother babe' ».  It was also alleged that Ms Thomas was selling her story to the Sun and/or blackmailing the footballer.

Super Injunction
A Super Injunction is the result of a secret convening of the court and where the file, the names of the parties and the terms of the injunction are kept secret except for those present in court.  Such injunctions grew out of family cases and then extended to implement privacy laws under the Human Rights Acts 1998.  The Formula One Chief Max Moseley won damages from News of the World when it published details about his sex life.  Such injunctions are becoming more and more common.  However, they are also regarded as a gag on investigative reporting and there are calls to abolish them.

Twitter and Parliamentary privilege
The publication of the footballer’s photograph in the Scottish Sunday Herald, the naming of the footballer on Twitter and his naming by Lib Dem MP John Hemming under Parliamentary privilege did not move the British Judges every time the defendants applied to have the injunction lifted as a result of publication and naming on Twitter and in Parliament.  In a separate case (referred to as TSE) heard on 23 May 2011 brought by another footballer, a High Court Judge ruled that « comments on Twitter about the private life of a famous person did not mean there should be no injunction preventing newspapers from publishing stories about him ».

If the law is regarded as a bad law, MPs should ensure that the law is changed but not flout it under privilege.  Even though the media have the right to report parliamentary debates, they are not covered under privilege and they have to make sure that they adhere strictly to the debates without any form of innuendos.  However, it is clear that MP John Hemming abused his privilege.  Lord Wolf, the former Lord Chief Justice said « I don’t approve of what I regard as a misuse of privileges of Parliament ».  Although it may not be practical to prosecute everyone for contempt of court for having breached the injunction on Twitter, some may well be caught in the net.  Four celebrities have been caught breaching the injunction. They have been named as Piers Morgan, Dom Joly, Toby Young and Boy George.  They have been warned that they could be liable to hefty damages and to prosecution for having identified the footballer on Twitter.

Conclusion
Those who campaign against the Super Injunction argue that it is only available to the rich.  This is not so because the injunction is available to everyone but it is so expensive that only the rich can afford it.  Also, the capitalist British media will not normally be interested in the affair of a beggar.  However, the difficulty with the Super Injunction is that the hearing is held in secret and the media are not even allowed to report on it.  This is regarded as a blot on freedom of expression and a denial of natural justice.  But where does the right to privacy end and freedom of expression begin?  Only a wise judge in a court of law can decide this, and this is what the Judge did in the case of Ryan Giggs after looking at the circumstances of the case.  It is clear that The Sun could not have had any hard evidence obtained by lawful means and could not satisfy the judge that it was a matter of public interest to name Ryan Giggs and report on his private life and alleged affair even though he may very well be a public figure, but not paid out of public funds like MPs are.  Lib Dem MP John Hemming should be ashamed of himself for abusing his position and naming Ryan Giggs.  He is a footballer, not a corrupt politician.

However, people should bear in mind the general lifestyles of some footballers, and their wives for that matter.  They are so filthy rich that many tend to indulge in all sorts of practices.  Many want to bed any number of women, mainly sex bombs, and their wives are often aware.  An avaricious media tend to go to any length, pay any amount of money, for scandalous sex stories (many fabricated), including orgies, wife-swapping and more, involving celebrities.  Women are queuing up to go to bed with footballers, and many succeed in doing so.  The story does not end there as it somehow finds its way to the Sun and News of the World, the British media of the gutter, albeit the most popular.  Only the courts can put a stop to such abuses.