Eady's judgement from 16 May:
www.newsmediaimages.com/celebrity-article-24126-imogen-thomas-blackmail-mentioned-by-judge-eady-in-injunction/
Point 15 states: 'It seems that Ms Thomas had instructed other solicitors for a short time, with whom the Claimant?s advisers had made contact on 15 April. On that date she had signed a very brief witness statement accepting that she wished to publish her account of her relationship with the Claimant and that she was in discussion with the Mail on Sunday about that.'
From points 5 to 12 it is a reasonable assumption for the judge to make that she may have planned to accept money from a newspaper for her story.
It is not in dispute that she asked first for £50,000 and then £100,000 from the footballer. Again it is a reasonable assumption that this was a blackmail attempt.
I assume Eady would have asked to see the texts. If not Imogen's barrister David Price QC would have argued that they didn't exist. It appears from the judgement that he said nothing and assumed a 'watching' role. Possibly that was because there was nothing truthful to say that would have been good for her.
I don't like what the footballer has done. I believe Imogen probably did believe he loved her and was going to ride off into the sunset together. If that was the case I think she justifiably felt hurt and angry and may have wanted some sort of revenge.
But blackmail is a serious criminal offence and she did nothing to suggest that wasn't her intention. She was lying on This Morning and Max Clifford has been economical with the truth.
We have to protect people who can make a reasonable case that they are being blackmailed.
If there were legal grounds to overturn the injunction it could have been appealed. Imogen might not have much money but the Sun does. If they could have disputed the conclusions drawn by the judge, they would have done.