Why are superinjunctions allowed?

[Twonewcats]

Or rather, why do some of them seem to trump the law?
If a celeb has done something eg an affair, I sort of understand how a superinjunction can be in place in order to protect kids and ensure no weirdo fans do something awful to any of the parties.
HOWEVER, why are they allowed if the celebrity has broken the law?
Surely the law should be the priority? Or am I misunderstanding these situations? Are there potentially investigations ongoing, but the superinjuction only prevents the press etc reporting on them?

Superinjunctions, so fashionable ten years ago, are very rarely granted these days. They tend to be sought on the grounds that public disclosure of information about the applicant would not be in the wider interest because of the effect it would have on otherwise uninvolved connected parties. For instance, one still-enduring injunction was granted because it was shown that the especially vulnerable children of a celebrity couple would be deeply affected if certain private information about the celebs was published. They can never be granted to conceal lawbreaking. And you've got to have a damned good reason (and very deep pockets) to ask a court for an injunction, super or bog standard. Judges tend to take the view these days that if the media publish something about you that you don't like, or isn't true, you have a remedy: sue. I see that some other threads on MN have been claiming recently that a certain celebrity currently very much in the news has a superinjunction in place to prohibit publication of details of an alleged inappropriate relationship. This is untrue. There is no injunction, super or otherwise, in place: in this case publication is restrained by lack of proof plus the suggestion, albeit unconfirmed, that one of the parties has mental health issues. In this particular case, some MNers have been sailing very close to the wind with what has been posted on here.

You seem to be very knowledgeable about the subject! Any clues as to the celeb couple??

With the injunction that’s still standing?

Is there still any point in superinjunctions, in the age of the internet?

Anybody in a different country can publish the facts and then anybody from any country can find and read that article.

Wasn't there one involving a footballer, where he got the SI, but it only applied in England & Wales, so the Scottish papers reported on it and, of course, also put it in their online versions, where anybody in E&W could also see the whole story instantly.

I don't see why people should be able to keep their piss poor behaviour out of the public eye by paying for one of these.

I heard that most injunctions ans superinjunctions weren't actually used by celebrities to hide affairs or children, but companies to hide undesireable information coming out. Is/was that true?

It's under a super injunction.....so no.
Obviously.

No one who knows can say. That is the point.

Surely the law should be the priority?

Superinjunctions, being High Court orders, are the law (at least until they are overturned).

Bluebell1970 and Elvira2000, as I posted earlier, you can't just rock up to a judge and expect to be granted an injunction just because you don't want something published about you. You have to convince the court that there is a wider issue to be considered. An injunction is an emergency measure and so there has to be a demonstratable need for urgency. It is not true that most injunctions are sought by companies trying to prevent publication of corporate matters they wish to conceal; that is not what the courts are there for.

Yes

This is my confusion though - re the current celeb, how would the public know if there was or otherwise? And how do you know there's one in place re a current celeb couple?
I can't get my head around it all

Ryan Giggs and the (Scottish) Sunday Herald.

In a word: Twitter.

I know of a superinjunction a bit randomly and whenever I read about the man who brought it, the wording in the papers is very “accurate”. It always (as an example) says X and his wife have 3 children together or Mrs X has three children with her husband. It never says X has three children. Because he doesn’t. He’s got more.

And it ain’t Boris Johnson!

any more clues, please? And what is the superinjunction regarding - infidelity?

Agree with everyone else that in an age of social media and sites like Twitter and Reddit, these sorts of legal devices do not have the same power as in the days where the choices for news were the newspapers, or BBC.

Anyone, anywhere in the world can log into one of these sites, type "superinjunction" into the search box, and see what comes up. Yes it's probably illegal to tweet or post about things which are under superinjunction, in the same way as it's illegal to post abuse or make untrue accusations about people online - like Dave who lives at 24 High Street is a peeeedo. But people do it all the time and there are hardly any prosecutions.

There's probably a simple answer to this, but a super injunction is one where even the existence of the injunction can't be talked about, is that right? So how do people know about it, in order to then know not to talk about the thing itself?

Eg if I write "X had an affair with Y" and then it turns out that that was the subject of a super injunction, how was I supposed to know that?

Celeb couple involves one of whom is a rocket man

That one was all over international news a few years back. Which is why injunctions on celebrities is just pointless really.

I couldn’t give any more clues sadly! This particular chap is not really the devil incarnate. He is using the law as much as he can. And I don’t think he’s made any hypocritical statements. I think it’s more about the children. And fair enough!

yes, exactly! My head cannot rationalise any of it!

Not the one who likes pegging?!

He’s not quite the opposite to Prince William but he’s amusingly far from him - it’s that thing that when you know who it is and you’re writing it, you think anything you’ll say is outing (probably like those women who think saying their husband cycles on Sat will out them to everyone). But a loooonnng way from a royal. I deleted the word “hypocritical” about 4 times, thinking that was a giveaway.

It’s not all that exciting as actually no one gives a shit about how many children he has as it has no bearing on anything but I read articles very carefully now for that sort of wording as I noticed how subtle but deliberate articles are in their wording now.