Following Friday’s revelations, Lord Hain claims that his breaching of the injunction was “in my personal capacity as an independent member of the House of Lords. I categorically state that I was completely unaware Gordon Dadds were advising the Telegraph regarding this case… Gordon Dadds, a highly respected and reputable international law firm, played absolutely no part whatsoever in either the sourcing of my information or my independent decision to name Sir Philip. They were completely unaware of my intentions until after I spoke in the House of Lords.” Guido understands Gordon Dadds were indeed furious with Hain…

What isn’t explained is how Hain could not know that the firm he advises was involved, given their name is on the front page of the widely circulated injunction to which he was referring. Is he going to claim to be incompetent again – as he did when he was forced to resign from the Cabinet?

The Telegraph’s Editor Emeritus Ian MacGregor tells Guido that, contrary to the rumour reported here on Saturday, “I did not discuss the Green case with Lord Hain. I have not spoken to him for around 5 years to the best of my recollection. I was on holiday last week and was unaware of the identity of the Claimants until revealed by Lord Hain in the House of Lords.” Guido is happy to accept his assurance.

So who did tell Hain? How independent was Hain’s “independent decision” exactly?  He said it was someone “intimately involved” in the case – it is unlikely to be a lawyer. Philip Green is livid of course, “As many people have said, Lord Hain’s blatant disregard of a judgement made by three senior judges is outrageous.” Green takes a very dim view of Hain’s financial relationship with his enemy’s law firm.

A clue to the source is perhaps that when Hain named Philip Green in the House of Lords on Thursday at 14:43, The Telegraph were the first to report the naming an impressively few minutes later. Nobody else noticed…

The Sun won their four-month long legal battle to report on Elton John’s sexual harassment case settlement. I guess that’s why they call it the news…

The Supreme Court has found in favour of PJS, ruling that the rich and powerful can hide their misdemeanours from public knowledge. Farcically, Judge Mance concluded that PJS is “likely to be granted a permanent injunction notwithstanding the internet and social media publication” – despite admitting that anyone can access the information online, the judge has decided it is illegal to publish in print. The judge describes how PJS’s “solicitors have been doing their best to remove offending URLs and web pages”, well whatever he says they have demonstrably failed. He talks of how coverage on the internet has been “restricted“. He is asking for Chinese-style restrictions of what you can read online in England…

Lord Toulson disagreed with the other judges on the panel, arguing:

“that where the information is widely available, the form of the publication should not make a significant difference”

He is of course correct, but was outvoted by his fellow judges. The internet has made an ass of the law…

The ruling specifically excludes those in public office from the privacy protections. So it is still open season on politicians…

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.