TUV Leader Jim Allister has established by an Assembly Question updated information on the number of super injunctions issued by the High Court in Belfast.
Whereas none have been issued since 2013, the answer establishes that the one then issued and four of the six previously made in the years since 2009, 2010 and 2011, all remain extant, making a current total of five. (The information revealing two issued in each of the years 2009, 2010 and 2011 and that the latest one was in 2013 comes from an earlier answer: http://aims.niassembly.gov.uk/questions/printquestionsummary.aspx?docid=199824 )
Commenting Jim Allister said:-
“The existence of ‘super injunctions’ is a product of the courts being persuaded to prioritise privacy rights over freedom of expression and press rights within the Human Rights Act. I am far from convinced that this balance is weighted in the right direction, particularly where it is a facility which in practical terms is only likely to be available to those who can afford it.
“Since by their very nature such orders do not sit comfortably with the transparency expectations of modern society, it is, I believe, in the public interest that information about the number of super injunctions should be known.
“It is also possible that super injunctions issued in London could also be operative here. Thus, the number may be higher than that revealed in these answers, which are in respect of those issued by our own High Court.”
The latest Q&A is below:-
Question:
To ask the Minister of Justice to detail (i) the number of orders that have been made by the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland prohibiting publicity on the granting of injunctive relief since 30 April 2012; (ii) when each order was made; (iii) the number that are extant; (iv) whether any such orders have been discharged since 30 April 2012; and (v) the total of orders, whenever made, extant at the date of answer.
Answer:
One order has been made by the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland prohibiting publicity on the granting of injunctive relief since 30 April 2012.
The date when this order was made cannot be provided without a risk of contravening the terms of the order.
The order is extant.
The order has not been discharged.
Of the orders made since 2006 four remain extant. Information prior to 2006 is not readily available and could only be compiled at a disproportionate cost.
Further information in respect of the extant orders cannot be provided without risking contravening the terms of the order itself.