This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/may/16/celebrity-threesome-injunction-decision-due-on-thursday
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| 'Celebrity threesome' injunction decision due on Thursday | 'Celebrity threesome' injunction decision due on Thursday |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| The supreme court will on Thursday deliver its long-awaited decision on a privacy injunction preventing identification of a celebrity involved in a three-way sexual encounter. | |
| The case has escalated into a public battle over the issue of whether or not orders banning publication can, or should, be sustained in an era when websites outside UK courts’ jurisdiction can be read from Britain. | The case has escalated into a public battle over the issue of whether or not orders banning publication can, or should, be sustained in an era when websites outside UK courts’ jurisdiction can be read from Britain. |
| The dispute is between the Sun on Sunday newspaper and the claimant, identified only by the initials PJS, who is in the entertainment business and is said to have had an extramarital affair with another couple about four years ago. | The dispute is between the Sun on Sunday newspaper and the claimant, identified only by the initials PJS, who is in the entertainment business and is said to have had an extramarital affair with another couple about four years ago. |
| Related: The injunction is back: entertainer blocks extramarital affair story | Related: The injunction is back: entertainer blocks extramarital affair story |
| The supreme court heard the case as an emergency last month and has been considering its response for the past four weeks. The issue at stake – whether injunctions should be upheld by the courts despite information being published on the internet outside the jurisdiction – will have far-reaching consequences for all future privacy cases. | The supreme court heard the case as an emergency last month and has been considering its response for the past four weeks. The issue at stake – whether injunctions should be upheld by the courts despite information being published on the internet outside the jurisdiction – will have far-reaching consequences for all future privacy cases. |
| Desmond Browne QC, representing PJS, told the supreme court last month: “This case has been hailed by some as the death knell of the privacy injunction. We hope that reports of its death have been greatly exaggerated.” Naming the celebrity, he has argued, would be devastating for the family’s children. | Desmond Browne QC, representing PJS, told the supreme court last month: “This case has been hailed by some as the death knell of the privacy injunction. We hope that reports of its death have been greatly exaggerated.” Naming the celebrity, he has argued, would be devastating for the family’s children. |
| Gavin Millar QC, for News Group Newspapers, has argued that because PJS, whose is married to YMA, had put details of their relationship into the public domain, it was in the public interest that the newspaper should publish an account of his sexual encounters with others. He has asked the supreme court to set aside the temporary injunction. | Gavin Millar QC, for News Group Newspapers, has argued that because PJS, whose is married to YMA, had put details of their relationship into the public domain, it was in the public interest that the newspaper should publish an account of his sexual encounters with others. He has asked the supreme court to set aside the temporary injunction. |
| The Sun on Sunday was originally told by the courts that it could not publish the story because the entertainer and his partner had an “open relationship” and therefore there was an expectation that his sexual encounters would remain private. | The Sun on Sunday was originally told by the courts that it could not publish the story because the entertainer and his partner had an “open relationship” and therefore there was an expectation that his sexual encounters would remain private. |
| The ruling will be broadcast live on the supreme court’s website. | The ruling will be broadcast live on the supreme court’s website. |