Source: http://ukscblog.com/new-judgment-pjs-v-news-group-newspapers-ltd-2016-uksc-26/
Timestamp: 2017-01-16 10:51:26
Document Index: 19816038

Matched Legal Cases: ['UKSC ', 'UKSC ', 'art 10', 'art 8', 'art 10', 'UKSC ']

New Judgment: PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] UKSC 26 – UKSCBlog	UK Supreme Court Blog	EDITORS: Dan Tench, Cathryn Hopkins, Ryan Dolby-Stevens, Emma Cross & Lucy Hayes (Olswang) Hugh Tomlinson QC, Matthew Ryder QC & Anthony Fairclough (Matrix)
New Judgment: PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] UKSC 26
The Supreme Court unanimously granted permission to appeal and by a majority of 4 to 1 the Supreme Court allowed PJS’s appeal against the decision to set aside the injunction.
In giving the lead judgment for the majority, Lord Mance stated that the principal error was that the Court of Appeal wrongly directed itself that the Human Rights Act 1998, s 12, enhanced the weight to be given to ECHR, art 10, rights in the balancing exercise, when the case law establishes that neither art 8 nor art 10 has preference over the other and what is necessary is an intense focus on the comparative rights being claimed in the individual case.
He also stated that there is no public interest in the legal sense in the disclosure of private sexual encounters even if they involve infidelity or more than one person at the same time. The question is whether the injunction can still serve a useful purpose and in this sense it is important to consider the medium and form of the previous publication: there is a qualitative difference in intrusiveness and distress between the disclosures on the internet which have occurred and the media storm which would follow from publication by the English media in hard copy, together with unrestricted internet coverage of the story. It is also the only remedy of any value to PJS for the breach of of his and his family’s privacy rights.
Lord Toulson, dissenting, would have upheld the discharge of the injunction. He considers that where the information is widely available, the form of the publication should not make a significant difference.
Leave a reply on "New Judgment: PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] UKSC 26"