Super injunctions

[John]

Twitter is whipping up a storm regarding a well known public figure and
the possibility they have issued a super injunction to prevent
allegations being published of something from their past.

If someone does issue a super injunction, is it in the public domain who
has issued it, or is that confidential?

[Jethro_uk]

Post by John
Twitter is whipping up a storm regarding a well known public figure and
the possibility they have issued a super injunction to prevent
allegations being published of something from their past.
If someone does issue a super injunction, is it in the public domain who
has issued it, or is that confidential?

And why can it not be reported in a foreign source that owes fuck all to
the UK courts ?

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by John
Twitter is whipping up a storm regarding a well known public figure and
the possibility they have issued a super injunction to prevent
allegations being published of something from their past.
If someone does issue a super injunction, is it in the public domain who
has issued it, or is that confidential?

And why can it not be reported in a foreign source that owes fuck all to
the UK courts ?

One might almost think it doesn't exist...

[John]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by John
Twitter is whipping up a storm regarding a well known public figure and
the possibility they have issued a super injunction to prevent
allegations being published of something from their past.
If someone does issue a super injunction, is it in the public domain who
has issued it, or is that confidential?

And why can it not be reported in a foreign source that owes fuck all to
the UK courts ?

I understand it can, and if there is a super injunction in this case
then it certainly will/would be already, so I'm thinking this is a
rumour without traction.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by John
Twitter is whipping up a storm regarding a well known public figure and
the possibility they have issued a super injunction to prevent
allegations being published of something from their past.
If someone does issue a super injunction, is it in the public domain who
has issued it, or is that confidential?

I think the "super" bit is that that information cannot be published.

[John]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by John
Twitter is whipping up a storm regarding a well known public figure and
the possibility they have issued a super injunction to prevent
allegations being published of something from their past.
If someone does issue a super injunction, is it in the public domain who
has issued it, or is that confidential?

I think the "super" bit is that that information cannot be published

Thank you, so no one would know if said person has issued a super
injunction.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by John
Twitter is whipping up a storm regarding a well known public figure and
the possibility they have issued a super injunction to prevent
allegations being published of something from their past.
If someone does issue a super injunction, is it in the public domain who
has issued it, or is that confidential?

By definition, a super injunction prevents you from revealing that the
injunction exists at all, let alone details such as who has issued it.

I've got a vague impression that super injunctions are now disallowed,
or at least very strongly discouraged. But either way, I would treat
any claims on social media of their existence with a great deal of
scepticism, especially if they are about high profile individuals
and are claimed to have been in place for a long time.

[GB]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by John
Twitter is whipping up a storm regarding a well known public figure and
the possibility they have issued a super injunction to prevent
allegations being published of something from their past.
If someone does issue a super injunction, is it in the public domain who
has issued it, or is that confidential?

By definition, a super injunction prevents you from revealing that the
injunction exists at all, let alone details such as who has issued it.

Copilot says "seeking specific details about a super injunction could
potentially breach the order". Do you think that's correct?

Post by Jon Ribbens
I've got a vague impression that super injunctions are now disallowed,
or at least very strongly discouraged. But either way, I would treat
any claims on social media of their existence with a great deal of
scepticism, especially if they are about high profile individuals
and are claimed to have been in place for a long time.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by GB

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by John
Twitter is whipping up a storm regarding a well known public figure and
the possibility they have issued a super injunction to prevent
allegations being published of something from their past.
If someone does issue a super injunction, is it in the public domain who
has issued it, or is that confidential?

By definition, a super injunction prevents you from revealing that the
injunction exists at all, let alone details such as who has issued it.

Copilot says "seeking specific details about a super injunction could
potentially breach the order". Do you think that's correct?

It doesn't sound correct. Generally speaking the injunction would
prevent you telling people things, not you asking questions. Unless
the question itself divulges information, I suppose, and you're
asking it of someone who doesn't already know about it. Although if
the intent of your question is clearly trying to breach the injunction
("what is it that you're not allowed to tell me?") then that would
seem unwise.

But generally speaking I wouldn't waste any time at all worrying about
whatever absolute bullshit an "AI" has generated.

[John]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by John
Twitter is whipping up a storm regarding a well known public figure and
the possibility they have issued a super injunction to prevent
allegations being published of something from their past.
If someone does issue a super injunction, is it in the public domain who
has issued it, or is that confidential?

By definition, a super injunction prevents you from revealing that the
injunction exists at all, let alone details such as who has issued it.
I've got a vague impression that super injunctions are now disallowed,
or at least very strongly discouraged. But either way, I would treat
any claims on social media of their existence with a great deal of
scepticism, especially if they are about high profile individuals
and are claimed to have been in place for a long time.

Thanks, I think you're right regarding treating it with scepticism.

[GB]

Post by John
Twitter is whipping up a storm regarding a well known public figure and
the possibility they have issued a super injunction to prevent
allegations being published of something from their past.

I don't usually go anywhere near Twitter, but I had a look at the
trending topics.

Twitter seems to have become a vast pit of bigots urging each other on.
Utter speculation gets treated as truth by the next poster. Clearly,
nobody there has a clue, but between them they have decided, with
absolute certainty, that a well-known politician is guilty of heinous
crimes.

Post by John
If someone does issue a super injunction, is it in the public domain who
has issued it, or is that confidential?

[David]

Post by John
Twitter is whipping up a storm regarding a well known public figure and
the possibility they have issued a super injunction to prevent
allegations being published of something from their past.
If someone does issue a super injunction, is it in the public domain who
has issued it, or is that confidential?

If you don't know the SuperInjunction exists, than how can you avoid
breaching it?

Cheers



Dave R

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by David

Post by John
Twitter is whipping up a storm regarding a well known public figure and
the possibility they have issued a super injunction to prevent
allegations being published of something from their past.
If someone does issue a super injunction, is it in the public domain who
has issued it, or is that confidential?

If you don't know the SuperInjunction exists, than how can you avoid
breaching it?

If you don't know it exists, you can't breach it.

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 18:12:17 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by David

Post by John
Twitter is whipping up a storm regarding a well known public figure and
the possibility they have issued a super injunction to prevent
allegations being published of something from their past.
If someone does issue a super injunction, is it in the public domain who
has issued it, or is that confidential?

If you don't know the SuperInjunction exists, than how can you avoid
breaching it?

If you don't know it exists, you can't breach it.

If I don't know an injunction exists but I discover by another route
the information to which it relates and I publish the information on
my website, have I infringed the injunction?

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Martin Harran
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 18:12:17 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by David

Post by John
Twitter is whipping up a storm regarding a well known public figure and
the possibility they have issued a super injunction to prevent
allegations being published of something from their past.
If someone does issue a super injunction, is it in the public domain who
has issued it, or is that confidential?

If you don't know the SuperInjunction exists, than how can you avoid
breaching it?

If you don't know it exists, you can't breach it.

If I don't know an injunction exists but I discover by another route
the information to which it relates and I publish the information on
my website, have I infringed the injunction?

If you don't know the injunction exists, then I think you haven't.
Although I expect someone would serve a copy of it on you fairly
promptly once your site was discovered, and then you would be in
breach if you didn't immediately take the site down.

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 10:14:22 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Martin Harran
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 18:12:17 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by David

Post by John
Twitter is whipping up a storm regarding a well known public figure and
the possibility they have issued a super injunction to prevent
allegations being published of something from their past.
If someone does issue a super injunction, is it in the public domain who
has issued it, or is that confidential?

If you don't know the SuperInjunction exists, than how can you avoid
breaching it?

If you don't know it exists, you can't breach it.

If I don't know an injunction exists but I discover by another route
the information to which it relates and I publish the information on
my website, have I infringed the injunction?

If you don't know the injunction exists, then I think you haven't.

Then that would make the injunction of very limited value, perhaps
targeted at a specific person or organisation known to be about to
publish something that only they know about.

Post by Jon Ribbens
Although I expect someone would serve a copy of it on you fairly
promptly once your site was discovered, and then you would be in
breach if you didn't immediately take the site down.

Stable doors and horses come to mind.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Martin Harran
On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 10:14:22 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Martin Harran
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 18:12:17 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by David

Post by John
Twitter is whipping up a storm regarding a well known public
figure and the possibility they have issued a super injunction to
prevent allegations being published of something from their past.
If someone does issue a super injunction, is it in the public
domain who has issued it, or is that confidential?

If you don't know the SuperInjunction exists, than how can you avoid
breaching it?

If you don't know it exists, you can't breach it.

If I don't know an injunction exists but I discover by another route
the information to which it relates and I publish the information on
my website, have I infringed the injunction?

If you don't know the injunction exists, then I think you haven't.

Then that would make the injunction of very limited value, perhaps
targeted at a specific person or organisation known to be about to
publish something that only they know about.

Well, that's what it's for! But what else do you expect - how could
a person be in breach of an injunction that they did not, and could
not, know existed? It would make a mockery of the law.

Post by Martin Harran

Post by Jon Ribbens
Although I expect someone would serve a copy of it on you fairly
promptly once your site was discovered, and then you would be in
breach if you didn't immediately take the site down.

Stable doors and horses come to mind.

Yes, but again, what else could be done? It may be that if such
a thing happened, the judge might decide that the cat was out of
the bag and as such the injunction was now pointless, and quash
it. But until they did so, you would be unwise to breach it once
you had been informed about it.

[billy bookcase]

Post by David

Post by John
Twitter is whipping up a storm regarding a well known public figure and
the possibility they have issued a super injunction to prevent
allegations being published of something from their past.
If someone does issue a super injunction, is it in the public domain who
has issued it, or is that confidential?

If you don't know the SuperInjunction exists, than how can you avoid
breaching it?

The injucted party knows. As do both sides legal representatives.

Only they're not allowed to tell others or publicise the fact

I always assumed these were granted by Judges in Chambers
as otherwise they would presumably appear in the Court Lists.

Court 4. !0.00 am. Application by Joe Bloggs for a Superinjunction

Howver superficial Googling at least, doesn't throw any light on the subject



bb

Post by David
Cheers
Dave R
--
AMD FX-6300 in GA-990X-Gaming SLI-CF running Windows 10 x64
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by David

Post by John
Twitter is whipping up a storm regarding a well known public figure and
the possibility they have issued a super injunction to prevent
allegations being published of something from their past.
If someone does issue a super injunction, is it in the public domain who
has issued it, or is that confidential?

If you don't know the SuperInjunction exists, than how can you avoid
breaching it?

The injucted party knows. As do both sides legal representatives.
Only they're not allowed to tell others or publicise the fact
I always assumed these were granted by Judges in Chambers
as otherwise they would presumably appear in the Court Lists.
Court 4. !0.00 am. Application by Joe Bloggs for a Superinjunction
Howver superficial Googling at least, doesn't throw any light on the subject

"Superinjunction" is an unofficial term, so it certainly wouldn't say
that. And court listings aren't generally that specific, so I don't
think it would even say "injunction", it would just say "Application
hearing". And one or more of the party names might be listed as an
anonymous alias (e.g. "ABC v News UK", or something).

[Owen Rees]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by David

Post by John
Twitter is whipping up a storm regarding a well known public figure and
the possibility they have issued a super injunction to prevent
allegations being published of something from their past.
If someone does issue a super injunction, is it in the public domain who
has issued it, or is that confidential?

If you don't know the SuperInjunction exists, than how can you avoid
breaching it?

The injucted party knows. As do both sides legal representatives.
Only they're not allowed to tell others or publicise the fact
I always assumed these were granted by Judges in Chambers
as otherwise they would presumably appear in the Court Lists.
Court 4. !0.00 am. Application by Joe Bloggs for a Superinjunction
Howver superficial Googling at least, doesn't throw any light on the subject

"Superinjunction" is an unofficial term, so it certainly wouldn't say
that. And court listings aren't generally that specific, so I don't
think it would even say "injunction", it would just say "Application
hearing". And one or more of the party names might be listed as an
anonymous alias (e.g. "ABC v News UK", or something).

There is some commentary on * (formerly *******) from what appears to
be[1] a firm of solicitors explaining the difference between a
superinjunction and an anonymised injunction with references.

Followups to that said that superinjunctions were very rare and usually
short term. On the other hand there is also a post that says a question was
asked in parliament about the number of superinjunctions in force and the
answer was that there was one in force in April.

Make of that what you will, with or without reading that thread as it
pleases you.

[1] I have not bothered to investigate whether or not the author of the
message is genuinely someone writing on behalf of a firm of solicitors. I
have not bothered to verify the authenticity of the documents they
reference either.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Owen Rees
Followups to that said that superinjunctions were very rare and usually
short term.

Isn't there some sort of perpetual injunction around Mary Bell ?

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Owen Rees
Followups to that said that superinjunctions were very rare and usually
short term.

Isn't there some sort of perpetual injunction around Mary Bell ?

If by "perpetual" you mean "for as long as she or her daughter
are alive" then yes. But that's an ordinary injunction, not a
superinjunction - we're not breaking any rules by mentioning
its existence. A great many "ordinary" injunctions exist.

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Owen Rees
Followups to that said that superinjunctions were very rare and
usually short term.

Isn't there some sort of perpetual injunction around Mary Bell ?

If by "perpetual" you mean "for as long as she or her daughter are
alive" then yes. But that's an ordinary injunction, not a
superinjunction - we're not breaking any rules by mentioning its
existence. A great many "ordinary" injunctions exist.

If her daughter has a child will they be similarly protected ?

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Owen Rees
Followups to that said that superinjunctions were very rare and
usually short term.

Isn't there some sort of perpetual injunction around Mary Bell ?

If by "perpetual" you mean "for as long as she or her daughter are
alive" then yes. But that's an ordinary injunction, not a
superinjunction - we're not breaking any rules by mentioning its
existence. A great many "ordinary" injunctions exist.

If her daughter has a child will they be similarly protected ?

I don't know but I doubt it, without another application being made.
Although obviously if someone has a child who lives with them, then
you basically can't reveal details about the child without implicitly
revealing details about their parent, so unless Mary Bell's daughter
dies, or her children (if any) grow up, change their names, and move
far away from her, then they would effectively be covered by the
existing injunction.

[GB]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Jethro_uk

Post by Owen Rees
Followups to that said that superinjunctions were very rare and
usually short term.

Isn't there some sort of perpetual injunction around Mary Bell ?

If by "perpetual" you mean "for as long as she or her daughter are
alive" then yes. But that's an ordinary injunction, not a
superinjunction - we're not breaking any rules by mentioning its
existence. A great many "ordinary" injunctions exist.

If her daughter has a child will they be similarly protected ?

I don't know but I doubt it, without another application being made.
Although obviously if someone has a child who lives with them, then
you basically can't reveal details about the child without implicitly
revealing details about their parent, so unless Mary Bell's daughter
dies, or her children (if any) grow up, change their names, and move
far away from her, then they would effectively be covered by the
existing injunction.

I know the answer to Jethro's question, as I read the WP article about
Mary Bell. (I don't recall the case.)

According to WP, Mary's daughter has had a child, and the protection has
been extended to her.

[billy bookcase]

I know the answer to Jethro's question, as I read the WP article about Mary Bell. (I
don't recall the case.)
According to WP, Mary's daughter has had a child, and the protection has been extended
to her.

But if the protection had been extended to Mary's daughter, as Jethro asked, then
how would anyone ever find out, that she too had had a daughter ?.


bb

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by GB
I know the answer to Jethro's question, as I read the WP article
about Mary Bell. (I don't recall the case.)
According to WP, Mary's daughter has had a child, and the protection
has been extended to her.

But if the protection had been extended to Mary's daughter, as Jethro
asked, then how would anyone ever find out, that she too had had a
daughter ?.

Because, as already mentioned, it's not a super-injunction, and
presumably it doesn't prevent people from revealing the fact that
these people exist, just any details about them (e.g. where they
live, what names they live under, what they do for a living).

[billy bookcase]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by GB
I know the answer to Jethro's question, as I read the WP article
about Mary Bell. (I don't recall the case.)
According to WP, Mary's daughter has had a child, and the protection
has been extended to her.

But if the protection had been extended to Mary's daughter, as Jethro
asked, then how would anyone ever find out, that she too had had a
daughter ?.

Because, as already mentioned, it's not a super-injunction, and
presumably it doesn't prevent people from revealing the fact that
these people exist, just any details about them (e.g. where they
live, what names they live under, what they do for a living).

But if people were prevented from knowing any details about Mary
Bell's daughter, where she lives or what name she goes under,
how can they have found out she had given birth to a child ?
(Not a daughter as previously suggested)



bb

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by GB
I know the answer to Jethro's question, as I read the WP article
about Mary Bell. (I don't recall the case.)
According to WP, Mary's daughter has had a child, and the protection
has been extended to her.

But if the protection had been extended to Mary's daughter, as Jethro
asked, then how would anyone ever find out, that she too had had a
daughter ?.

Because, as already mentioned, it's not a super-injunction, and
presumably it doesn't prevent people from revealing the fact that
these people exist, just any details about them (e.g. where they
live, what names they live under, what they do for a living).

But if people were prevented from knowing any details about Mary
Bell's daughter, where she lives or what name she goes under,
how can they have found out she had given birth to a child ?
(Not a daughter as previously suggested)

I'm not sure I understand the question. Why do you need to know
someone's name or location to know if they've had a child? Especially
if they've gone to court stating publicly that they've had a child.

[billy bookcase]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by GB
I know the answer to Jethro's question, as I read the WP article
about Mary Bell. (I don't recall the case.)
According to WP, Mary's daughter has had a child, and the protection
has been extended to her.

But if the protection had been extended to Mary's daughter, as Jethro
asked, then how would anyone ever find out, that she too had had a
daughter ?.

Because, as already mentioned, it's not a super-injunction, and
presumably it doesn't prevent people from revealing the fact that
these people exist, just any details about them (e.g. where they
live, what names they live under, what they do for a living).

But if people were prevented from knowing any details about Mary
Bell's daughter, where she lives or what name she goes under,
how can they have found out she had given birth to a child ?
(Not a daughter as previously suggested)

I'm not sure I understand the question. Why do you need to know
someone's name or location to know if they've had a child?

You wouldn't. But how would you know they were Mary Bell's daughter
in the first place, if they'd changed their name and location and
themselves had been subject to a privacy injunction ?

I'm pointing out the irony of the fact that if the injsunction
protecting the true identity of Mary Bell's daughter was successful,
then there would clearly be no need for a further injunction
protecting the true identity of Mary Bell's grand-daughter.
As was apparently suggested in the Wiki page referenced by
GB.

Or put another way if it's necessary to obtain privacy injunctions
for succeeding generations then this simply demonstrates how
useless they must be, in the first place

Post by Jon Ribbens
Especially
if they've gone to court stating publicly that they've had a child.

But why would Mary Bell's child ever have had ocassion to go to Court and
state publicly that she'd had a child ?

...

So that having assumed a new identity, she turns up in Court.

Tracy Todal (for it is she) "Hello I'd like to obtain an injunction
protecting my daughter's identity your Honour"

Judge: "Why ?"

Tracy Todal:"I'm actually Mary Bell's daughter"

Judge: "But your name is Tracy Todal. And WTF is Mary Bell ? And
why should I care ? And most important of all can you prove it ?"

Tracy Todal: "Well no. But can't I take a DNA test "

Judge." Usher ! Show this woman out. Next !!! "



bb

[GB]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by GB
I know the answer to Jethro's question, as I read the WP article
about Mary Bell. (I don't recall the case.)
According to WP, Mary's daughter has had a child, and the protection
has been extended to her.

But if the protection had been extended to Mary's daughter, as Jethro
asked, then how would anyone ever find out, that she too had had a
daughter ?.

Because, as already mentioned, it's not a super-injunction, and
presumably it doesn't prevent people from revealing the fact that
these people exist, just any details about them (e.g. where they
live, what names they live under, what they do for a living).

But if people were prevented from knowing any details about Mary
Bell's daughter, where she lives or what name she goes under,
how can they have found out she had given birth to a child ?
(Not a daughter as previously suggested)

I'm not sure I understand the question. Why do you need to know
someone's name or location to know if they've had a child?

You wouldn't. But how would you know they were Mary Bell's daughter
in the first place, if they'd changed their name and location and
themselves had been subject to a privacy injunction ?

I don't think there's an injunction preventing all details about Bell
being published. For example, a biography was written about her, in
which Bell participated. She was paid £15k for her input, and there was
a predictable outcry from the usual suspects about that payment.

Besides that, there was a court case in which the granddaughter
(referred to as Z) was granted anonymity. I'm sure the details are on
Bailii if you are interested.

The first reference to Mary Bell on there that I found is this one:
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2003/1101.html

It bans publication of specific information. Here's an excerpt, to get
the flavour of it:

(a) any information likely to lead to the identification of X as the
woman formerly known as Mary Bell
(b) any information likely to lead the identification of Y as a child of
the woman formerly known as Mary Bell
(c) any information likely to lead to the identification of the past
present or future whereabouts (including all residential or work
addresses and telephone numbers) of X which is likely to lead to the
identification of X as the woman formerly known as Mary Bell
(d) any information likely to lead to the identification of the past
present or future whereabouts (including all residential or work
addresses and telephone numbers) of Y which is likely to lead to the
identification of Y as a child of the woman formerly known as Mary Bell
(e) any depiction, image in any form, photograph, film or voice
recording of X or including X, which shows or tends to show X's actual
appearance after 1980, or any description of X's physical appearance,
voice or accent since 1980 which is likely to lead to the identification
of X as the woman formerly known as Mary Bell
(f) any depiction, image in any form, photograph, film or voice
recording of Y or including Y, or any description of Y's physical
appearance, voice or accent which is likely to lead to the
identification of Y as a child of the woman formerly known as Mary Bell


Also:

PROVIDED THAT nothing in this Order shall of itself prevent any person

(i) publishing any particulars of information relating to any part of
the proceedings before any court other than a court sitting in private
(ii) publishing any information lawfully in the public domain
...

Post by billy bookcase
I'm pointing out the irony of the fact that if the injsunction
protecting the true identity of Mary Bell's daughter was successful,
then there would clearly be no need for a further injunction
protecting the true identity of Mary Bell's grand-daughter.
As was apparently suggested in the Wiki page referenced by
GB.

I don't see any irony, but you may be right that it's overkill, as it
would be pretty difficult to identify the granddaughter without also
identifying her mother and grandmother.

Post by billy bookcase
Or put another way if it's necessary to obtain privacy injunctions
for succeeding generations then this simply demonstrates how
useless they must be, in the first place

I disagree. In 1996, the media 'outed' her - and she had to flee her
home. I'm sure they would do so again, were it not for the injunctions.
Scum, and I'm not talking about Bell.

[billy bookcase]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by GB
I know the answer to Jethro's question, as I read the WP article
about Mary Bell. (I don't recall the case.)
According to WP, Mary's daughter has had a child, and the protection
has been extended to her.

But if the protection had been extended to Mary's daughter, as Jethro
asked, then how would anyone ever find out, that she too had had a
daughter ?.

Because, as already mentioned, it's not a super-injunction, and
presumably it doesn't prevent people from revealing the fact that
these people exist, just any details about them (e.g. where they
live, what names they live under, what they do for a living).

But if people were prevented from knowing any details about Mary
Bell's daughter, where she lives or what name she goes under,
how can they have found out she had given birth to a child ?
(Not a daughter as previously suggested)

I'm not sure I understand the question. Why do you need to know
someone's name or location to know if they've had a child?

You wouldn't. But how would you know they were Mary Bell's daughter
in the first place, if they'd changed their name and location and
themselves had been subject to a privacy injunction ?

I don't think there's an injunction preventing all details about Bell being published.

But nobody has ever made such a claim; AFAIAA at least

For example, a biography was written about her, in which Bell participated. She was
paid £15k for her input, and there was a predictable outcry from the usual suspects
about that payment.

Unless the book reveals Bell's new identity, either explicitly or inadvertantly
then clearly there's no problem

In fact, thinking about it, there's no reason to suppose that any such biography
might not include deliberately misleading information about Bell that might
further help conceal her new identity and throw people off the scent About her
supposed hobbies or interests for instance or her new life.

Besides that, there was a court case in which the granddaughter (referred to as Z) was
granted anonymity. I'm sure the details are on Bailii if you are interested.

So that Mary Bell's daughter, living under a new name and a new identity, had to
reveal herself as in fact being Mary Bell's daughter, in order to obtain "anonymity"
for her own daughter ?

Can you not see the evident contradiction here ?

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2003/1101.html
It bans publication of specific information. Here's an excerpt, to get the flavour of
(a) any information likely to lead to the identification of X as the woman formerly
known as Mary Bell
(b) any information likely to lead the identification of Y as a child of the woman
formerly known as Mary Bell
(c) any information likely to lead to the identification of the past present or future
whereabouts (including all residential or work addresses and telephone numbers) of X
which is likely to lead to the identification of X as the woman formerly known as Mary
Bell
(d) any information likely to lead to the identification of the past present or future
whereabouts (including all residential or work addresses and telephone numbers) of Y
which is likely to lead to the identification of Y as a child of the woman formerly
known as Mary Bell
(e) any depiction, image in any form, photograph, film or voice recording of X or
including X, which shows or tends to show X's actual appearance after 1980, or any
description of X's physical appearance, voice or accent since 1980 which is likely to
lead to the identification of X as the woman formerly known as Mary Bell
(f) any depiction, image in any form, photograph, film or voice recording of Y or
including Y, or any description of Y's physical appearance, voice or accent which is
likely to lead to the identification of Y as a child of the woman formerly known as
Mary Bell
PROVIDED THAT nothing in this Order shall of itself prevent any person
(i) publishing any particulars of information relating to any part of the proceedings
before any court other than a court sitting in private
(ii) publishing any information lawfully in the public domain

Which is no more or less than might be expected.

...

Post by billy bookcase
I'm pointing out the irony of the fact that if the injsunction
protecting the true identity of Mary Bell's daughter was successful,
then there would clearly be no need for a further injunction
protecting the true identity of Mary Bell's grand-daughter.
As was apparently suggested in the Wiki page referenced by
GB.

I don't see any irony, but you may be right that it's overkill, as it would be pretty
difficult to identify the granddaughter without also identifying her mother and
grandmother.

Post by billy bookcase
Or put another way if it's necessary to obtain privacy injunctions
for succeeding generations then this simply demonstrates how
useless they must be, in the first place

I disagree. In 1996, the media 'outed' her - and she had to flee her home. I'm sure
they would do so again, were it not for the injunctions.

Outed whom ?

In any case I can't really believe it would be "that" difficult for someone
like Mary Bell's daughter to conceal her true identity. How often do
people go about doing "deep reasarch" on the parents of their friends
or even possible spouses ? For a start I would imagine that at one point
or other Mary Bell would have been given sufficient documaentation to
support a new identity which it would have been beyond the reources of
all but the most skilled and resourceful to call into question.

Scum, and I'm not talking about Bell.

Nah. He played for Citeh..


bb

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by GB
Besides that, there was a court case in which the granddaughter
(referred to as Z) was granted anonymity. I'm sure the details are on
Bailii if you are interested.

So that Mary Bell's daughter, living under a new name and a new
identity, had to reveal herself as in fact being Mary Bell's daughter,
in order to obtain "anonymity" for her own daughter ?

She had to "reveal" herself to a lawyer and a judge, in order to avoid
her daughter potentially being revealed to the world at large.

Post by billy bookcase
Can you not see the evident contradiction here ?

Can you not see the evident lack of contradiction here?

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by GB
Besides that, there was a court case in which the granddaughter
(referred to as Z) was granted anonymity. I'm sure the details are on
Bailii if you are interested.

So that Mary Bell's daughter, living under a new name and a new
identity, had to reveal herself as in fact being Mary Bell's daughter,
in order to obtain "anonymity" for her own daughter ?

She had to "reveal" herself to a lawyer and a judge, in order to avoid
her daughter potentially being revealed to the world at large.

Post by billy bookcase
Can you not see the evident contradiction here ?

Can you not see the evident lack of contradiction here?

More importantly, the news organisations undoubtedly know every detail of the
lives of all three of them, and were poised to exploit any weakness of the
injunction that might allow them to "expose" one of them without revealing
anything about the others. This is the sort of thing that means a lot to a
certain kind of twisted person newspaper reader.

[billy bookcase]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by GB
Besides that, there was a court case in which the granddaughter
(referred to as Z) was granted anonymity. I'm sure the details are on
Bailii if you are interested.

So that Mary Bell's daughter, living under a new name and a new
identity, had to reveal herself as in fact being Mary Bell's daughter,
in order to obtain "anonymity" for her own daughter ?

She had to "reveal" herself to a lawyer and a judge, in order to avoid
her daughter potentially being revealed to the world at large.

There is already an injunction (a) preventing tne real identity of
Mary Bell's daughter, being revealed.

Thus if Mary Bell's daughter has a child, its real identity as
being the child of Mary Bell's daughter cannot be revealed, as
this would already be contrary to injunction (a)

So why is it necessary to obtain a further injunction to prevent
tbe real identity of Mary Bells daughter's child, as being the
grandchild of Mary Bell, from being revealed ?

As this would already be contrary to the existing injunction (a)



bb

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by GB
Besides that, there was a court case in which the granddaughter
(referred to as Z) was granted anonymity. I'm sure the details are on
Bailii if you are interested.

So that Mary Bell's daughter, living under a new name and a new
identity, had to reveal herself as in fact being Mary Bell's daughter,
in order to obtain "anonymity" for her own daughter ?

She had to "reveal" herself to a lawyer and a judge, in order to avoid
her daughter potentially being revealed to the world at large.

There is already an injunction (a) preventing tne real identity of
Mary Bell's daughter, being revealed.
Thus if Mary Bell's daughter has a child, its real identity as
being the child of Mary Bell's daughter cannot be revealed, as
this would already be contrary to injunction (a)
So why is it necessary to obtain a further injunction to prevent
tbe real identity of Mary Bells daughter's child, as being the
grandchild of Mary Bell, from being revealed ?
As this would already be contrary to the existing injunction (a)

Well, if you find out where she is, you can go tell her that she didn't
need to get the injunction and that she should probably sue the lawyer
who helped her get it, and you can also tell the judge they shouldn't've
granted it as it was unnecessary.

[billy bookcase]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by GB
Besides that, there was a court case in which the granddaughter
(referred to as Z) was granted anonymity. I'm sure the details are on
Bailii if you are interested.

So that Mary Bell's daughter, living under a new name and a new
identity, had to reveal herself as in fact being Mary Bell's daughter,
in order to obtain "anonymity" for her own daughter ?

She had to "reveal" herself to a lawyer and a judge, in order to avoid
her daughter potentially being revealed to the world at large.

There is already an injunction (a) preventing tne real identity of
Mary Bell's daughter, being revealed.
Thus if Mary Bell's daughter has a child, its real identity as
being the child of Mary Bell's daughter cannot be revealed, as
this would already be contrary to injunction (a)
So why is it necessary to obtain a further injunction to prevent
tbe real identity of Mary Bells daughter's child, as being the
grandchild of Mary Bell, from being revealed ?
As this would already be contrary to the existing injunction (a)

Well, if you find out where she is, you can go tell her that she didn't
need to get the injunction and that she should probably sue the lawyer
who helped her get it, and you can also tell the judge they shouldn't've
granted it as it was unnecessary.

While I assume the actual reason would be that when the mother dies, the
privacy order will lapse; thus potentially allowing tne identity of the
daughter to be finally revealed.

Assuming that is, that anyone under the age of about 70, among the
remaining 5,000 or so readers of the "Sun" would be in the slightest
bit interested or even remember who she was.



bb

[Owen Rees]

Post by Owen Rees

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

On Tue, 01 Oct 2024

Post by John
Twitter is whipping up a storm regarding a well known public figure and
the possibility they have issued a super injunction to prevent
allegations being published of something from their past.
If someone does issue a super injunction, is it in the public domain who
has issued it, or is that confidential?

If you don't know the SuperInjunction exists, than how can you avoid
breaching it?

The injucted party knows. As do both sides legal representatives.
Only they're not allowed to tell others or publicise the fact
I always assumed these were granted by Judges in Chambers
as otherwise they would presumably appear in the Court Lists.
Court 4. !0.00 am. Application by Joe Bloggs for a Superinjunction
Howver superficial Googling at least, doesn't throw any light on the subject

"Superinjunction" is an unofficial term, so it certainly wouldn't say
that. And court listings aren't generally that specific, so I don't
think it would even say "injunction", it would just say "Application
hearing". And one or more of the party names might be listed as an
anonymous alias (e.g. "ABC v News UK", or something).

There is some commentary on * (formerly *******) from what appears to
be[1] a firm of solicitors explaining the difference between a
superinjunction and an anonymised injunction with references.
Followups to that said that superinjunctions were very rare and usually
short term. On the other hand there is also a post that says a question was
asked in parliament about the number of superinjunctions in force and the
answer was that there was one in force in April.

This seems a bit unlikely given that there isn't actually a "register
of superinjunctions", so it's not obvious how anyone responding to a
question in parliament would have any way of knowing how many there
were.

I found what looks like an authoritative source for the question and
answer.

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2024-04-15/hl3795

Post by Owen Rees
Make of that what you will, with or without reading that thread as it
pleases you.

Well I can't read the thread as you haven't given any way of finding it.
But I did find this thread from a firm of solicitors which backs up what
https://x.com/LevinsLaw/status/1841096512987648108
which also specifically mentions the points I made about it being
particularly unlikely if the claim is that the applicant is a
high-profile individual or that the injunction has existed for
a long time.

Unfortunately the existence of super-injunctions provides a fertile
breeding ground for conspiracy theories.

Any ridiculous claim can be backed up by the argument that we hear nothing
about it because of a super-injunction and we know there is a
super-injunction because we hear nothing about it.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Owen Rees

Post by Owen Rees
Followups to that said that superinjunctions were very rare and usually
short term. On the other hand there is also a post that says a
question was asked in parliament about the number of
superinjunctions in force and the answer was that there was one in
force in April.

This seems a bit unlikely given that there isn't actually a "register
of superinjunctions", so it's not obvious how anyone responding to a
question in parliament would have any way of knowing how many there
were.

I found what looks like an authoritative source for the question and
answer.
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2024-04-15/hl3795

Huh, well I suppose given they're very rare there may be people involved
in the MoJ or the High Court who would just know off the top of their
heads what ones existed. Although those people could presumably only
know of any injunctions by them being breached by court staff!

Post by Owen Rees

Well I can't read the thread as you haven't given any way of finding it.
But I did find this thread from a firm of solicitors which backs up what
https://x.com/LevinsLaw/status/1841096512987648108
which also specifically mentions the points I made about it being
particularly unlikely if the claim is that the applicant is a
high-profile individual or that the injunction has existed for
a long time.

Unfortunately the existence of super-injunctions provides a fertile
breeding ground for conspiracy theories.
Any ridiculous claim can be backed up by the argument that we hear nothing
about it because of a super-injunction and we know there is a
super-injunction because we hear nothing about it.

True, but the more scandalous or long-lasting it is claimed to be, the
less likely it becomes that we wouldn't hear of it via foreign press,
or an MP in parliament, or someone simply breaching the injunction.

[billy bookcase]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Owen Rees

Post by Owen Rees
Followups to that said that superinjunctions were very rare and usually
short term. On the other hand there is also a post that says a
question was asked in parliament about the number of
superinjunctions in force and the answer was that there was one in
force in April.

This seems a bit unlikely given that there isn't actually a "register
of superinjunctions", so it's not obvious how anyone responding to a
question in parliament would have any way of knowing how many there
were.

I found what looks like an authoritative source for the question and
answer.
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2024-04-15/hl3795

Huh, well I suppose given they're very rare there may be people involved
in the MoJ or the High Court who would just know off the top of their
heads what ones existed. Although those people could presumably only
know of any injunctions by them being breached by court staff!

It was a written question. So no TOTH required.

Please note: Only the date of the answer is provided not the date
the question was posted

Presumably it was merely a question of asking around.

As the granting of such injunctions must clearly be a matter of
record in the relevant Courts.


bb

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Owen Rees

Post by Owen Rees
Followups to that said that superinjunctions were very rare and usually
short term. On the other hand there is also a post that says a
question was asked in parliament about the number of
superinjunctions in force and the answer was that there was one in
force in April.

This seems a bit unlikely given that there isn't actually a "register
of superinjunctions", so it's not obvious how anyone responding to a
question in parliament would have any way of knowing how many there
were.

I found what looks like an authoritative source for the question and
answer.
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2024-04-15/hl3795

Huh, well I suppose given they're very rare there may be people involved
in the MoJ or the High Court who would just know off the top of their
heads what ones existed. Although those people could presumably only
know of any injunctions by them being breached by court staff!

It was a written question. So no TOTH required.

I think you've missed my point that there is no "register of
superinjunctions" as far as I'm aware.

Post by billy bookcase
Please note: Only the date of the answer is provided not the date
the question was posted
Presumably it was merely a question of asking around.
As the granting of such injunctions must clearly be a matter of
record in the relevant Courts.

"A matter of record" inasmuch as if you were to manually look through
every page of every case file held by every court in the country you
would find them all. Since that clearly isn't going to happen, it would
presumably have to be based upon the recollection of somebody or other.

[billy bookcase]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Owen Rees

Post by Owen Rees
Followups to that said that superinjunctions were very rare and usually
short term. On the other hand there is also a post that says a
question was asked in parliament about the number of
superinjunctions in force and the answer was that there was one in
force in April.

This seems a bit unlikely given that there isn't actually a "register
of superinjunctions", so it's not obvious how anyone responding to a
question in parliament would have any way of knowing how many there
were.

I found what looks like an authoritative source for the question and
answer.
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2024-04-15/hl3795

Huh, well I suppose given they're very rare there may be people involved
in the MoJ or the High Court who would just know off the top of their
heads what ones existed. Although those people could presumably only
know of any injunctions by them being breached by court staff!

It was a written question. So no TOTH required.

I think you've missed my point that there is no "register of
superinjunctions" as far as I'm aware.

But there "are" statistics. Rather than there being any "OTOTH" element
as claimed. See below.

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase
Please note: Only the date of the answer is provided not the date
the question was posted
Presumably it was merely a question of asking around.
As the granting of such injunctions must clearly be a matter of
record in the relevant Courts.

"A matter of record" inasmuch as if you were to manually look through
every page of every case file held by every court in the country you
would find them all. Since that clearly isn't going to happen, it would
presumably have to be based upon the recollection of somebody or other.

quote:

3.4 Privacy Injunctions
Data for the privacy injunction figures have been collected via statistical
returns completed by the hearing judge and forwarded to the Ministry of
Justice statistics team. The judge in the case therefore determines whether
an injunction has met the criteria for inclusion in these statistics.

:unquote


https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/civil-justice-statistics-quarterly-july-to-september-2022/guide-to-civil-justice-statistics-quarterly#data-sources-and-data-quality


bb

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Owen Rees

Post by Owen Rees
Followups to that said that superinjunctions were very rare and usually
short term. On the other hand there is also a post that says a
question was asked in parliament about the number of
superinjunctions in force and the answer was that there was one in
force in April.

This seems a bit unlikely given that there isn't actually a "register
of superinjunctions", so it's not obvious how anyone responding to a
question in parliament would have any way of knowing how many there
were.

I found what looks like an authoritative source for the question and
answer.
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2024-04-15/hl3795

Huh, well I suppose given they're very rare there may be people involved
in the MoJ or the High Court who would just know off the top of their
heads what ones existed. Although those people could presumably only
know of any injunctions by them being breached by court staff!

It was a written question. So no TOTH required.

I think you've missed my point that there is no "register of
superinjunctions" as far as I'm aware.

But there "are" statistics. Rather than there being any "OTOTH" element
as claimed. See below.

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase
Please note: Only the date of the answer is provided not the date
the question was posted
Presumably it was merely a question of asking around.
As the granting of such injunctions must clearly be a matter of
record in the relevant Courts.

"A matter of record" inasmuch as if you were to manually look through
every page of every case file held by every court in the country you
would find them all. Since that clearly isn't going to happen, it would
presumably have to be based upon the recollection of somebody or other.

3.4 Privacy Injunctions
Data for the privacy injunction figures have been collected via statistical
returns completed by the hearing judge and forwarded to the Ministry of
Justice statistics team. The judge in the case therefore determines whether
an injunction has met the criteria for inclusion in these statistics.
:unquote
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/civil-justice-statistics-quarterly-july-to-september-2022/guide-to-civil-justice-statistics-quarterly#data-sources-and-data-quality

But that doesn't say what you claim it does. It says there are figures
available for the total number of "privacy injunction proceedings"
across the entire country. Which isn't what we were talking about.

[billy bookcase]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Owen Rees

Post by Owen Rees
Followups to that said that superinjunctions were very rare and usually
short term. On the other hand there is also a post that says a
question was asked in parliament about the number of
superinjunctions in force and the answer was that there was one in
force in April.

This seems a bit unlikely given that there isn't actually a "register
of superinjunctions", so it's not obvious how anyone responding to a
question in parliament would have any way of knowing how many there
were.

I found what looks like an authoritative source for the question and
answer.
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2024-04-15/hl3795

Huh, well I suppose given they're very rare there may be people involved
in the MoJ or the High Court who would just know off the top of their
heads what ones existed. Although those people could presumably only
know of any injunctions by them being breached by court staff!

It was a written question. So no TOTH required.

I think you've missed my point that there is no "register of
superinjunctions" as far as I'm aware.

But there "are" statistics. Rather than there being any "OTOTH" element
as claimed. See below.

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by billy bookcase
Please note: Only the date of the answer is provided not the date
the question was posted
Presumably it was merely a question of asking around.
As the granting of such injunctions must clearly be a matter of
record in the relevant Courts.

"A matter of record" inasmuch as if you were to manually look through
every page of every case file held by every court in the country you
would find them all. Since that clearly isn't going to happen, it would
presumably have to be based upon the recollection of somebody or other.

3.4 Privacy Injunctions
Data for the privacy injunction figures have been collected via statistical
returns completed by the hearing judge and forwarded to the Ministry of
Justice statistics team. The judge in the case therefore determines whether
an injunction has met the criteria for inclusion in these statistics.
:unquote
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/civil-justice-statistics-quarterly-july-to-september-2022/guide-to-civil-justice-statistics-quarterly#data-sources-and-data-quality

But that doesn't say what you claim it does. It says there are figures
available for the total number of "privacy injunction proceedings"
across the entire country. Which isn't what we were talking about.

There is a not entirely unreasonable expectation surely, that anyone
sufficiently interested in any subject, might make use of the opportunity
afforded by the links provided by others, to enquire further for
themselves ?

Thus...

quote:

When a statistical return is received by the Ministry of Justice Statistics
team it is quality assured, by checking all fields have been correctly filled.

[...]

This is also the case if in receiving a statistical return form it becomes
clear an earlier privacy injunction has not yet been reported to us (for
example, if we receive a continuation privacy injunction form which does not
relate to a interim privacy injunction proceeding).

:unquote

IOW statistics concerning privacy injunctions are gathered on a case by
case basis.

Which I already suspected intuitively. Given that ever since Victorian times
where Govt Depts and public bodies are concerned, if it's been possible to
accumulate detailed statistics about almost anything at all, then
this will have been, and still is being done. Only nowadays the use of
databases simply speeds things up somewhat.


bb

[billy bookcase]

Post by billy bookcase

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Owen Rees

Post by Owen Rees
Followups to that said that superinjunctions were very rare and usually
short term. On the other hand there is also a post that says a
question was asked in parliament about the number of
superinjunctions in force and the answer was that there was one in
force in April.

This seems a bit unlikely given that there isn't actually a "register
of superinjunctions", so it's not obvious how anyone responding to a
question in parliament would have any way of knowing how many there
were.

I found what looks like an authoritative source for the question and
answer.
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2024-04-15/hl3795

Huh, well I suppose given they're very rare there may be people involved
in the MoJ or the High Court who would just know off the top of their
heads what ones existed. Although those people could presumably only
know of any injunctions by them being breached by court staff!

It was a written question. So no TOTH required.
Please note: Only the date of the answer is provided not the date
the question was posted

In fact looking at the top, it was tabled *10 days earlier*
on April 15th

Post by billy bookcase
Presumably it was merely a question of asking around.
As the granting of such injunctions must clearly be a matter of
record in the relevant Courts.
bb