{"id":10360,"date":"2016-11-14T08:50:22","date_gmt":"2016-11-14T08:50:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/etims.net\/?p=10360"},"modified":"2016-11-14T08:50:22","modified_gmt":"2016-11-14T08:50:22","slug":"celtic-diary-monday-november-14-is-there-a-superinjunction-in-place","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/etims.net\/?p=10360","title":{"rendered":"Celtic Diary Monday November 14: Is There A Superinjunction In Place?"},"content":{"rendered":"

The medias reluctance to even discuss any matter that has any connection, no matter how small, with Resolution 12 can only point to a superinjunction being in place.<\/p>\n

Or, as they are known in Scots Law, an interdict… ( Or a handshake between goat botherers )<\/p>\n

In Scots law, an interdict is a court order to stop someone from breach your rights.<\/span>[1]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0They can be issued by the Court of Session or a Sheriff Court. The equivalent term in England is an injunction. A temporary interdict is called an interim interdict.<\/span>[2]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0A court will grant an interim interdict if there is a prima facie case and on the balance of convenience the remedy should be granted.<\/span>[3]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Breaching an interdict can result in a fine or imprisonment.<\/span>[4]<\/a>\u00a0<\/sup><\/em><\/p>\n

The “rights ” in question are the rights to privacy,<\/p>\n

In Scotland, the rules were simply that if no one challenges such an order within 48 hours it will be put in place..<\/p>\n

Up to 2013 , at least, when new draft rules were drawn up , according to Robert Buchan on the Brodies website, who explained how it all works in his article of July 2013;<\/p>\n

The issues of anonymity and reporting restrictions are currently very topical in Scotland as The Scottish Civil Justice Council has just launched a consultation on draft revised court rules.<\/em><\/p>\n

These new\u00a0rules would introduce clearer rights\u00a0for the media to challenge the grant of\u00a0any order which restricts the reporting of proceedings, rather than the current position which\u00a0focuses mostly on possible variation or recall after the order is granted. The consultation is open until 2 October 2013 and can be accessed\u00a0here<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

In 2010 in the case of\u00a0Mackay and BBC Scotland v The United Kingdom\u00a0<\/a>the European Court of Human Rights\u00a0was\u00a0critical of the informal procedure which had been adopted in Scotland up to that point\u00a0which allowed orders to be made and then\u00a0become final if the media made no challenge within 48 hours.<\/em><\/p>\n

That criticism related to\u00a0a statutory\u00a0power under\u00a0the Contempt of Court Act 1981 to restrict reporting and led to the creation of\u00a0Chapter 102 of the existing\u00a0Rules of\u00a0The Court of Session. It was felt that reporting restrictions and\u00a0related anonymity were not limited only to contempt situations and\u00a0that wider reforms were required\u00a0to ensure that\u00a0all situations\u00a0in which a court is considering making\u00a0an\u00a0order which restricted\u00a0freedom of expression were covered, including other statutory provisions as well as inherent powers of the court.\u00a0Different decisions in Scotland had produced different views on the extent to which Scottish Courts had inherent powers to grant anonymity and so clarification was required and a level playing field created.<\/em><\/p>\n

At the time, the proposed new rules would have changed things..<\/p>\n

.…the new draft\u00a0rules allow the media an opportunity to make representations to the court before any order is made. This is in addition to the existing rules of challenge or variation after grant. The court would have to send a copy of the draft order to people who have\u00a0registered an interest in seeing such orders and include sufficient information to\u00a0provide them with a basis to challenge the application. No doubt a long list of interested parties will quickly form if these rules are put in place. However \u00a0notably \u00a0there is also a\u00a0non-notification rule which applies when there are compelling reasons not to inform the media such as an individual seeking an interdict to restrict the disclosure of private information.<\/em><\/p>\n

So what of super injunctions in Scotland? Adopting a \u201ccanny\u201d Scottish approach the\u00a0Scottish Civil Justice Council is\u00a0not convinced that the non notification rule will result in\u00a0a rush to obtain\u00a0these types of orders in Scotland solely on the basis that there have not been\u00a0so many privacy type cases to date. However the effect of these new rules and the impact of\u00a0the\u00a0high profile Giggs \u00a0certainly mean that the stage is set for \u00a0super injunctions (or interdicts)\u00a0becoming more common. It is worth\u00a0all parties and their legal advisors, and not just footballers, being aware that it can be a whole different ball game in Scotland!<\/em><\/p>\n

I’ve no idea if they came into force, and I haven’t looked.<\/p>\n

But I’m fairly certain that a couple of rolled up trouser legs and the correct handshake would have seen any such application go through as quietly as possible. Especially if they didn’t have to tell anyone anyway.<\/p>\n

Indeed, was this the event that prompted a change in the rules ?<\/p>\n

If an interdict is in place, it would have been set up before 2013, as the events surrounding the allegations the Resolution 12 guys are making took place before that, when someone could petition the court and not have to tell anyone he was doing it.<\/p>\n

If such an interdict is in place, we would have to ask who took it out.<\/p>\n

Would it have been the SFA, in order to protect their own around the shambolic circumstances that surrounded the insolvency event that saw the original Rangers end up in liquidation ?<\/p>\n

Could it have been David Murray, who was behind the fall of Rangers ?<\/p>\n

Could it have been a wee bit of collusion between the two, as neither of them have featured in any post mortem surrounding the death of Rangers ?<\/p>\n

Would this explain the “legalities ” offered as an explanation by some in the media as to why they wouldn’t run with the story ?<\/p>\n

Even Channel 4, who were ready to run with it, pulled the story on the advice of lawyers, and sometimes, what people don’t tell you can lead you to the answer to the question you are asking.<\/p>\n

Something is preventing a proper and thorough investigation of the events up to and beyond the liquidation of Rangers. It might not be cowardly editors and journalists after all.<\/p>\n

Celtic have also ben reluctant to comment on this issue. Is this the reason ?<\/p>\n

The AGM is this week, maybe someone could ask them.<\/p>\n

Someone needs to start answering some questions soon, or at least tell us why.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Lets expand on this for a moment,,,supposing you were in the media, and you could not report on something that you know is wrong, but you know who is behind it…<\/p>\n

What would you do ?<\/p>\n

You’d go about it another way, wouldn’t you…<\/p>\n

The trial of Stewart Regan – why the man in charge of the SFA needs to go<\/h1>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n