|
''CTB v News Group Newspapers'' is an English legal case between Manchester United player Ryan Giggs, given the pseudonym CTB, and defendants News Group Newspapers Limited and model Imogen Thomas. On 14 April 2011, Mr Justice Eady granted first a temporary injunction at the High Court in London, preventing the naming of the footballer in the media, then extending it on 21 April 2011. The injunction was initially intended to prevent details of the case – an alleged extra-marital relationship between Giggs and Thomas – from being published in ''The Sun''.〔 The ruling of the court was based on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the "Right to respect for private and family life." Following the publication of details of the gagging order on Twitter, naming Giggs as the footballer involved, there was widespread discussion in the UK and international media on the issue of how court injunctions can be enforced in the age of social media websites. On 23 May 2011, Justice Eady rejected News Group Newspapers' application to lift the injunction, despite pressure from the public and government. Later the same day, Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming used parliamentary privilege to name Ryan Giggs as CTB.〔 ==Background== On 14 April 2011, ''The Sun'' published a story entitled "Footie star’s affair with ''Big Brother''’s Imogen Thomas". It claimed that "a Premier League star" had met Thomas at luxury hotels during a "six-month fling", but did not name the footballer involved. According to ''The Sunday Times'',〔"The leftie banker who outed Giggs". Richard Woods, ''The Sunday Times'', 29 May 2011.〕 the first mention on Twitter of the alleged relationship between Giggs and Thomas may have been posted at 10:02 PM BST by James Webley on 14 April 2011, the day of the initial granting of the injunction. Webley is a UK citizen from Guildford with the Twitter username "@unknownj". Webley denied being the source of the leak, and pointed to a web page written by a man named Michael Wheeler that he had read on the same day, which he said strongly hinted that Giggs was the person involved. On 8 May 2011, an account on social networking site Twitter was created under the name "Billy Jones", and posted the alleged details of several of the anonymised privacy injunctions that had been mentioned in the media. This included the claim that the married footballer known as CTB had been involved in a seven-month extra-marital relationship with model Imogen Thomas. While Thomas could be named in the UK media, the identity of CTB could not.〔 On the same date, messages saying that the identity of claimant CTB was Manchester United player Ryan Giggs were posted on Twitter and subsequently reported in a number of non-UK media sources. The allegations were repeatedly reposted online by other users, in a similar response to that of the Twitter Joke Trial the year before. In delivering his ruling on the case on 16 May 2011, Eady argued: "It will rarely be the case that the privacy rights of an individual or of his family will have to yield in priority to what has been described in the House of Lords as 'tittle-tattle about the activities of footballers' wives and girlfriends.'" He also argued that a balance had to be struck between Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to privacy, and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression. Eady denied in the ruling that he was "introducing a law of privacy by the back door", which had been a common criticism of his decisions in the UK media, and stated that the principles involved in the ruling were "readily apparent from the terms of the Human Rights Act, and indeed from the European Convention itself."〔 The Human Rights Act 1998 had been passed by the UK government, and incorporated the terms of the Convention into UK law. The ruling also suggested that Imogen Thomas had attempted to blackmail the footballer for £50,000 and £100,000, a claim she strongly denied. Following a failed attempt by ''The Sun'' to lift the injunction on 16 May 2011, Thomas commented: "Yet again my name and reputation have been trashed while the man I had a relationship with is able to hide. What's more I can't even defend myself because I have been gagged. If this is the way privacy injunctions are supposed to work there is something seriously wrong with the law." Eady said that he could not "come to any final conclusion" on whether there had been an attempt at blackmail.〔 It was stated in the ruling that Imogen Thomas had "at some stage engaged the services of Mr Max Clifford", the well-known UK publicist, and that the purpose of meetings Thomas had arranged with the footballer had been "that ''The Sun'' was ready to take advantage of these prearranged meetings in order to be able to put forward the claim that it was ''The Sun'' which had found him 'romping with a busty ''Big Brother'' babe'".〔 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|