On 1 July 2010 12:32, Daniel Hilton <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1 July 2010 12:22, Timothy Green <[email protected]> wrote: >> In that case, I suspect the question was asking if there were sources >> outside the jurisdiction of the court -- though I suppose since no party can >> report the injunction, the information can't leak out anyway. >> >> -t > > At a basic level, if you can't know about it nor find out about it - > how on earth can you possibly stop yourself from being prosecuted by > it? >
Because it doesn't work like that. If you don't know about it you can't either be (i) in contempt of court or (ii) in breach of the order. As a general rule orders of the court: * are only binding on people on whom they are properly served (albeit you can ask the court to allow you to effect service in unusual ways) * are not, normally, punishable by prosecution, but by an application for committal (which is not a criminal proceeding), and commital is not ordered that freely So in practice the idea is to stop the bits of the media you focus on from reporting it, which you can do. There was some attempt in a case this year (I'm too ill to find it I'm afraid) to prevent those served with the order from being able to obtain access to the application and evidence submitted in court on the claimant's behalf. A sort of Kafka-style order. The court was unimpressed by that attempt and refused to do so. My impression is (and of course its hard to tell) that the courts are getting more reluctant to allow this sort of thing, or when they do make orders make very nuanced orders that only hide some but not all of the information. > How can you know, what you are not suppose to know, unless somebody tells you? > > Or am I getting the wrong end of the stick? Yes. > Cheers, > Dan -- Francis Davey _______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
