Access to Public Information, Content Regulation / Censorship, Other (see tags), Privacy, Data Protection and Retention, Defamation / Reputation, Political Expression
Sarney v. O Estado de São Paulo
In Progress Contracts Expression
Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:
Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.
On November 29, 2014, the England and Wales High Court granted an anonymous applicant an injunction to stop a defendant newspaper from publicizing information concerning a sexual relationship the applicant allegedly had. The judgment came down on December 3, 2014 and a directions hearing took place on 5 December, 2014.
The applicant is an individual who has been anonymized in the court documents to protect his privacy interests and identity. The defendant is News Group Newspapers, the publisher of Sun on Sunday. The applicant applied for an injunction to stop the defendant from publicizing information concerning a sexual relationship the applicant had in 2011. On November 29, 2014, Justice Stewart of the England and Wales High Court granted the injunction for a short period to allow for the filing of further evidence. The defendant had agreed to give an undertaking not to publish the information concerning the applicant for seven days but was not prepared to give that undertaking to the court. Although the defendant did not refuse to keep the applicant anonymous, the defendant also did not agree to it.
On November 29, 2014, Justice Stewart granted a privacy injunction against Sun on Sunday to restrain the publication of information about the applicant’s alleged sexual relationship.
The judgment came down on December 3, 2014. Writing for the Court, Judge Stewart held that the test in Section 12 of the Human Rights Act was satisfied (that is, Freedom of Expression was likely to be affected), and therefore, the applicant was likely to establish that the publication should not be allowed. Stewart also noted that Articles 8 and 10 of the European Court of Human Rights were in favor of the applicant. He further stated that it was necessary that the proceedings be private and that the applicant to remain anonymous. Stewart considered that an injunction was necessary because the defendant did not agree to the anonymity of the applicant. In addition, Stewart stated that the defendant had failed to give the applicant the forty-eight hours agreed notice of intended publication.
A directions hearing took place on 5 December 2014 before Sir David Eady.
Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.
This was the first privacy injunction against the media since January 2013. The last privacy injunction granted against a media defendant was in the case of Rocknroll v News Group Newspapers on January 17, 2013.
Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.
Article 12 of the UK Human Rights Act 1998
Freedom of expression.
Article 8 of the European Court of Human Rights
Right to respect for private and family life
Article 10 of the European Court of Human Rights
Freedom of expression
Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.
Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.