The superinjunction rides again

This morning’s Guardian reports on what seems to be a piece of legal history.

A wealthy financier involved in a family dispute has made British legal history by winning anonymity in a libel case. This latest court attempt to censor internet material has led to claims that free speech is being further eroded in Britain.

The case is quite a murky one, apparently involving allegations of blackmail and sex offences. Nonethless, the precedent set must be cause for alarm.

Index Chief Executive John Kampfner commented: “This takes the epidemic of superinjunctions down a dangerous new path. Now they are being used not only to protect supposed privacy, but libel too.”

Gavin Millar QC adds: “Courts are increasingly granting anonymity to claimants where withholding details of evidence used to be regarded as sufficient. This case seems to be more of the same. Open justice is suffering.”

Read the full story here

University threatens MP with libel case over Gaddafi criticism

Liverpool John Moores University has threatened to sue a Conservative MP after he criticised its relations with the Libyan regime, Index on Censorship has learned.

Robert Halfon MP, whose grandfather was expelled from Libya in 1968, has been vociferous in his opposition to the Gadaffi family, and particularly its ties with UK universities.

London School of Economics director Sir Howard Davies resigned earlier this month after it was disclosed the school had taken £1.5 million from the north African state.

LJMU does not deny that it has had dealing with the Libyan regime, saying in a statement that “everything that we have done has been delivered transparently, at the invitation or with the encouragement and the support of the FCO (through the British Ambassador) and the British Council.”

British Prime Minister David Cameron said this week that Universities should ask “some pretty searching questions” about relations with Libya.

On Monday, the coalition government published its draft libel reform bill, which proposes to protect expression of “honest opinion”.

US court rejects David Beckham libel case

David Beckham’s libel case against In Touch magazine has been thrown out of an American court. Beckham brought the £15.5m lawsuit over an article which alleged that he had paid for sex with a prostitute. He sought USD25m in compensation. The judge accepted that the article was innaccurate but could not establish malice on the facts of the case. This is required under US law, although a German court has found in their favour and awarded damages.  He intends to appeal the decision.