Press regulator IPSO has written to editors today with a warning on behalf of David Furnish:
STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL; NOT FOR PUBLICATION
The Independent Press Standards Organisation has today been contacted by representatives of David Furnish.
Mr Furnish says he is concerned by the conduct of photographers outside his home. He has asked IPSO to pass on his request that photographers desist from attempts to follow, pursue or photograph him.
We are happy to pass on his request, and note the terms of Clause 2 (Privacy), Clause 3 (Harassment) and Clause 6 (Children) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.
The Supreme Court will hear argument as to whether permission to appeal should be granted, and, if it is granted, as to whether the appeal should be allowed or dismissed. The interim injunction granted by the Court of Appeal will remain in place until the conclusion of the Supreme Court hearing, and at the end of the hearing the Supreme Court will decide whether to continue that injunction. Until then…
In his judgement Lord Justice Jackson effectively ruled that injunctions cannot remain in place once knowledge of the injucted information is widespread:
“The court should not make orders which are ineffective. It is inappropriate – some may used a stronger term – for the court to ban people from saying that which is common knowledge… Knowledge of the relevant matters is now so widespread that confidentiality has probably been lost”
Google search trends show that searches for “David Furnish” in the UK have increased to a trend score of 100 in the last few days, the maximum possible score relative to previous searches for his name:
Searches for “Daniel Laurence”, the man who claims he had an olive oil paddling pool threesome with Furnish, have also increased to a score of 100:
This data shows just those who already knew to search those specific names. Several times as many people will have discovered the identities simply by searching “celebrity injunction”:
Carter Ruck’s attempts to threaten Google into taking down search results revealing the identities failed completely. As Lord Justice Jackson says, knowledge has become widespread…
The injunction has been lifted but the names can not yet be published pending appeal. The gagging order remains in place until Wednesday 1pm…
UPDATE: The judge adds:
“The court should not make orders which are ineffective. It is inappropriate for the court to ban people from saying that which is common knowledge. Knowledge of the relevant matters is now so widespread that confidentiality has probably been lost.”
Read Lord Justice Jackson on the futility of injunctions here.
The decision on whether the celebrity threesome injunction is to be lifted will be announced at 12:30pm. This morning YouGov found 55% of the 2,000 plus polled now know the identities of those involved. Not to mention anyone and everyone in the US, Canada, Scotland, Sweden and China. The gagging order has been rendered meaningless…