THE footballer at the centre of a gagging order over a relationship with reality TV star Imogen Thomas was named by an MP in the Commons yesterday as Ryan Giggs.
Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming, who has been campaigning on the issue, said: “With about 75,000 people having named Ryan Giggs on Twitter, it is obviously impracticable to imprison them all.”
The MP’s action finally lifted the blackout on mainstream media identifying the Manchester United star even though a High Court judge had again refused to lift the injunction earlier yesterday.
House of Commons speaker John Bercow took the MP to task over his action, saying: “Let me just say to the honourable gentleman, I know he’s already done it, but occasions such as this are occasions for raising the issues of principle involved, not seeking to flout for whatever purpose.”
Hemming said: “The question is what the Government’s view is on the enforceability of a law that clearly doesn’t have public consent.”
Attorney General Dominic Grieve said: “It is our duty as parliamentarians to uphold the rule of law.”
The increasingly farcical game of cat-and-mouse between Britain’s media and celebrities, Twitter users and the judiciary had prompted Prime Minister David Cameron to promise a review of the country’s privacy laws.
For weeks British media have been fighting the growing use by the rich and famous of “super injunctions” – English court orders which prevent publication of unwelcome stories and prohibit journalists from even reporting that a ban is in place.
A newspaper in Scotland had ran a photograph on Sunday of Giggs over an article calling it “unsustainable” to bar reporters from naming the man identified in hundreds of Twitter postings as among celebrities using court orders to stifle sex scandals.
Cameron, in a television interview, said: “It is rather unsustainable, this situation, where newspapers can’t print something that everyone else is clearly talking about.
“The danger is that (court) judgments are effectively writing a sort of new law, which is what parliament is meant to do,” he added, laughing off a question about whether he knew which soccer star was at the centre of the newspaper row.
Scotland’s Herald newspaper on Sunday published a picture of the football player, with a black band across his eyes and the word “censored” in capital letters. Scotland has its own legal system, making it harder to pursue the newspaper.
Lawyers representing the player had also asked US-based Twitter via a London court for information about the users of the messaging website who published details of his private life.
Attempts by British celebrities to keep aspects of their private lives secret using strict court orders have been undermined by Twitter users posting allegations on the website.
Politicians have also used parliamentary privilege to disclose that former Royal Bank of Scotland head Fred Goodwin had won a gagging order. Goodwin came under fire for taking a generous pension despite his bank needing a state rescue.
Critics, including a tabloid media that thrives on celebrity gossip and scandal, say courts are being used to stifle freedom of speech and shield the famous from scrutiny. Those in favour of court orders say they protect people’s right to privacy.
One of Britain’s top judges recommended on Friday that the media should be told in advance about applications for gagging orders against them.
Scotland’s most senior politician Alex Salmond said yesterday that the Herald should not be pursued by the English courts for publishing Giggs’ photo.
“It looks to me like the English law, English injunctions look increasingly impractical in the modern world,” said Salmond, a nationalist who heads Scotland’s devolved government.
“It seems that everyone is out of step except the English courts,” he told BBC radio.
