THE WORST-kept secret in Britain was blown out the water yesterday when a Liberal Democrat MP used parliamentary privilege to expose Ryan Giggs as the married Premier League footballer hiding his affair behind a superinjunction.
John Hemming, MP for Birmingham Yardley, revealed that Giggs was the man at the centre of the gagging order during an urgent questions session at the House of Commons.
But, while Mr Hemming's revelation was an unexpected part of the debate, it came as no great surprise to the many people who were already aware of Giggs' name being used in relation to this on Twitter.
Mr Hemming was able to make his statement without fear of prosecution for contempt of court as he is afforded the protection of absolute privilege in the Commons.
However, that protection does not extend to the media in areas of strict liability such as contempt.
And so that meant the BBC was originally in the frankly farcical position of being able to tell us an MP had blown Giggs' cover but without using the Welsh footballer's name.
Meanwhile, the superinjunction officially remained in place, much to the frustration of the Sun newspaper who had appealed twice to the High Court to have it removed - but failed both times.
The second of these failures came just minutes before Mr Hemming stood to speak in the Commons.
And so, this morning, in a rare show of unity in strength by the national press - albeit perhaps an unintentional one - every newspaper had Giggs on its front page.
But, despite the Sun's attempts in the courts, top marks must actually go to the sub editors at the Mirror for their brilliant pun, 'Naming Private Ryan'.
Of course, Giggs is not the only philanderer failing to keep his name out of the public eye with the use of a superinjunction.
Last week, the former boss of collapsed bank RBS, Fred Goodwin, was similarly 'outed' in Parliament when Lib Dem peer Lord Stoneham used absolute privilege to reveal his name during a debate in the Lords.
And, earlier this month, BBC presenter Andrew Marr was technically in contempt of his own gagging order after he performed a spectacular U-turn by revealing the details of his affair himself.
"I did not come into journalism to go around gagging journalists," Marr told the Daily Mail, rendering his superinjunction invalid.
But, as the latest issue of Private Eye magazine succinctly pointed out, he had in fact spent the last three years of his career doing exactly that.
Now, the real issue here - as is often the case with media furores - is one of the public interest - i.e. is it in the public interest that people know about these affairs or is the right to a private life a more important consideration?
Well, the answer usually lies somewhere in between but, in the Marr case, the superinjunction should surely never have been imposed as the sheer hypocrisy of it absolutely wreaked.
As Private Eye notes, Marr is "a hack of three decades-standing, a respected writer on the history of journalism and a former political editor responsible for countless ministerial grillings".
And the satirical fortnightly magazine also reveals a Marr quote in which he opposes exactly the sort of gagging order which he himself had used.
"There is an argument about whether to allow a judge-made law to accumulate or to have a clean, honest, open debate in Parliament," Marr has said.
"I'm on enough of a traditionalist to believe that is what should happen rather than allow it to be settled by judges."
As for the other cases detailed in this blog, there is a compelling argument for Goodwin's injunction being overturned in that his affair took place in the months leading up to the collapse of his ailing bank.
The Giggs case is less clear cut than those of 'jug ears' Marr and Fred 'the Bed' Goodwin - but it is still wrong that some rich people use the law as a playtoy while other less fortunate have their private lives exposed.
Of course, the three cases mentioned here are just a drop in an ocean of gagging orders.
For a start, Private Eye states it is aware of no fewer than 53 superinjunctions and the nature of these instruments often means that the media cannot even mention that there is a court order in place.
Perhaps most importantly, it should be pointed out that not all of these injunctions will simply be a Who's Who gallery of shaggers.
Some of the orders will be protecting companies like Trafigura who used a superinjunction to hide the fact that they had been charged with dumping toxic waste off the coast of west Africa.
In line with events this week, this gag was also unmasked by a combination of 'mischievous' Twitter users and Paul Farrelly MP in Parliament.
It is becoming pretty clear that even superinjunctions are no guarantor of keeping your name out of the public spotlight.
That news will not sadden any journalists out there - especially considering the fact that these gagging orders are often evidently being used when the details are in the public interest.
Perhaps those who feel they have been mistreated by the media should use the law already in place to make their point, rather than hiding behind the gagging orders.
For the avoidance of doubt, the existing law is article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights - the right to privacy...
This is balanced, of course, by article 10 - the right to freedom of expression.
No comments:
Post a Comment