The Most Beautiful Piece Of Music Ever...
Music0 min ago
Public Interest (Sort Of Thing)
A man accused of rape can be named because other potential victims can come forward.
But if a wealthy influential businessman is accused of sexual harassment and racist bullying he can get an injunction to stop his name being made public by virtue of being rich and influential.
Surely if the first is I. The public interest then so is the second?
https:/
But if a wealthy influential businessman is accused of sexual harassment and racist bullying he can get an injunction to stop his name being made public by virtue of being rich and influential.
Surely if the first is I. The public interest then so is the second?
https:/
Answers
1 to 8 of 8
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by cassa333. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
In the first, it is usually as a criminal case is going to court.
In the second, reprehensible as his behaviour has been, there is no case going before the courts......at that time.
PG has not yet admitted that he is the businessman in question; the one who obtained the injunction. He has admonished Peter Hain for the disclosure of his name citing all sorts of underhand behaviour and influences....and he has also said that he has never behaved in the way described - racist, sexist, etc.
There has always been a very indistinct line between what is 'in the public's interest' and what 'the public is interested in'.
In the second, reprehensible as his behaviour has been, there is no case going before the courts......at that time.
PG has not yet admitted that he is the businessman in question; the one who obtained the injunction. He has admonished Peter Hain for the disclosure of his name citing all sorts of underhand behaviour and influences....and he has also said that he has never behaved in the way described - racist, sexist, etc.
There has always been a very indistinct line between what is 'in the public's interest' and what 'the public is interested in'.
roopower, the woman (or man) is named if it has been proved that she (or he) lied in court and found guilty, like this woman
https:/
https:/
“…the woman (or man) is named if it has been proved that she (or he) lied in court and found guilty,…”
Indeed. But not if the accused had simply been found Not Guilty (which does not necessarily mean the alleged victim lied).
I have my views on MPs or Lords using Parliamentary Privilege to thwart court orders (which I made on a different thread yesterday).
However, this question is somewhat different. As I understand it, the Daily Telegraph had allegedly discovered that Mr Green had “paid off” a number of people who had complained of his behaviour towards them and insisted, as part each settlement, that a “Non-Disclosure Agreement” (NDA) was signed. This prevented the recipient of the pay-off from disclosing what had gone on. Mr Green then went to court to prevent the Telegraph from publishing anything that they had discovered.
The court injunction is still in place. This means that details of the NDAs (the behaviour alleged and the names of the parties to it) still cannot be reported. The injunction is temporary until a full hearing into the issue is held in the New Year. However, Mr Green is not “on trial” (either by social media or by pitchfork) for anything. No criminal behaviour is under consideration. Mr Green wanted the fact that he had secured NDAs suppressed. Mr Hain believed it was in the public interest to make that known and used his privilege to do so.
As I said yesterday, I’m not entirely sure that Mr Hain was right to do what he did. However I believe it was more incorrect for the court to grant an order suppressing the fact that Mr Green had secured the NDAs. That is where I believe the problem lies. Assuming Mr Green had secured the agreements (and although he denies any impropriety he has not, as far as I can tell, denied securing the NDAs) I believe the public is entitled to know. His alternative remedy was to deny the allegations made by his accusers and defend those allegations in open court. He chose not to do so and has got his fingers burnt.
The original idea of NDAs was to prevent employees changing jobs and taking commercially sensitive information from their former employer to the new one. Mr Green (and Ryan Giggs a few years ago) have, IMO, abused their purpose and a review of their use is urgently required.
Indeed. But not if the accused had simply been found Not Guilty (which does not necessarily mean the alleged victim lied).
I have my views on MPs or Lords using Parliamentary Privilege to thwart court orders (which I made on a different thread yesterday).
However, this question is somewhat different. As I understand it, the Daily Telegraph had allegedly discovered that Mr Green had “paid off” a number of people who had complained of his behaviour towards them and insisted, as part each settlement, that a “Non-Disclosure Agreement” (NDA) was signed. This prevented the recipient of the pay-off from disclosing what had gone on. Mr Green then went to court to prevent the Telegraph from publishing anything that they had discovered.
The court injunction is still in place. This means that details of the NDAs (the behaviour alleged and the names of the parties to it) still cannot be reported. The injunction is temporary until a full hearing into the issue is held in the New Year. However, Mr Green is not “on trial” (either by social media or by pitchfork) for anything. No criminal behaviour is under consideration. Mr Green wanted the fact that he had secured NDAs suppressed. Mr Hain believed it was in the public interest to make that known and used his privilege to do so.
As I said yesterday, I’m not entirely sure that Mr Hain was right to do what he did. However I believe it was more incorrect for the court to grant an order suppressing the fact that Mr Green had secured the NDAs. That is where I believe the problem lies. Assuming Mr Green had secured the agreements (and although he denies any impropriety he has not, as far as I can tell, denied securing the NDAs) I believe the public is entitled to know. His alternative remedy was to deny the allegations made by his accusers and defend those allegations in open court. He chose not to do so and has got his fingers burnt.
The original idea of NDAs was to prevent employees changing jobs and taking commercially sensitive information from their former employer to the new one. Mr Green (and Ryan Giggs a few years ago) have, IMO, abused their purpose and a review of their use is urgently required.
well the judgement is here for anyone to read
https:/
The case may or may not turn on the following
a) Green paid off a five or so women and imposed a gag as a clause of the contract. They willingly said yes and pocketed the money
b) The teleg secured details, and one said they were willing to have it discussed and another said no and the middle three were undecided
c)Green's lawyers argued that the contractrual gag should be extended to the DT which was had not signed the gag.
d) the DT argued that they were independent
e) it was not agreed whether the DT had used information from the five silent gagged parties.
Clearly if the info was from the gaggees then there is a case for extending the injunction and if it wasnt then they should be allowed to print. I dont think Green Lawyers agreed with the last bit
Their lordships agonised a bit over this and basically said that silence should be enforced until the accelerated earliest hearing to determine facts had been held in early 2019.
and I think Hain as right to go *** - the answer is....
Some very highly paid lawyers have come out on Green side of silence and didnt like it much when people asked:
"you 're being paid to say this arent you? and the more they pay the more you deplore. "
and the fat overfed lawyers gravely intoned it was ALL in the interests of justice, and money had nothing to do with it when it obviously had.
https:/
The case may or may not turn on the following
a) Green paid off a five or so women and imposed a gag as a clause of the contract. They willingly said yes and pocketed the money
b) The teleg secured details, and one said they were willing to have it discussed and another said no and the middle three were undecided
c)Green's lawyers argued that the contractrual gag should be extended to the DT which was had not signed the gag.
d) the DT argued that they were independent
e) it was not agreed whether the DT had used information from the five silent gagged parties.
Clearly if the info was from the gaggees then there is a case for extending the injunction and if it wasnt then they should be allowed to print. I dont think Green Lawyers agreed with the last bit
Their lordships agonised a bit over this and basically said that silence should be enforced until the accelerated earliest hearing to determine facts had been held in early 2019.
and I think Hain as right to go *** - the answer is....
Some very highly paid lawyers have come out on Green side of silence and didnt like it much when people asked:
"you 're being paid to say this arent you? and the more they pay the more you deplore. "
and the fat overfed lawyers gravely intoned it was ALL in the interests of justice, and money had nothing to do with it when it obviously had.
1 to 8 of 8
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.