Celeb threesome couple STILL can’t be named as Supreme Court upholds draconian gagging order
Judges said the injunction would not be lifted in England and Wales
THE A list couple behind a threesome gagging order can still not be named after Supreme Court judges today upheld the ruling.
The celeb pair have already been widely named in reports in America and across the internet.
They have already been named in China, America, Spain and even Scotland leaving almost two billion people worldwide free to read who the couple are.
But Britain’s most senior judges at the highest court in the land today decided to keep the details of the case secret - despite acknowledging “the story has been accessible on the internet and social media”.
Supreme Court president Lord Neuberger had said last month that the court would ";take time to consider this matter".
Today’s decision leaves readers in England and Wales still in the dark.
Experts have said that the case has now probably cost those involved £1million.
Tory MP Philip Davies had previously branded the situation a “farce” that was making an “ass out of the law”.
And despite the fact billions of people worldwide can read who the couple are Lord Mance said lifting the injunction would result in "intensive coverage".
He said: “It is true the story has been accessible on the internet and social media but if the injunction were to be lifted, there would be intensive coverage of the story by the Sun on Sunday (and there is little doubt, by other newspapers) as well as unrestricted internet and social media coverage, all of which could constitute additional and potentially more enduring invasions of the privacy of PJS, his partner and their children.”
Delivering the court’s judgment by a four-to-one majority, Lord Mance said there was no public interest in naming PJS and that revealing details of the affair would breach the family’s privacy.
He said: “Publication of the story would infringe privacy rights of PJS, his partner and their children.
“There is no public interest (however much it may be of interest to some members of the public) in publishing kiss-and-tell stories or criticisms of private sexual conduct, simply because the persons involved are well-known; and so there is no right to invade privacy by publishing them.
“It is different if the story has some bearing on the performance of a public office or the correction of a misleading public impression cultivated by the person involved. But... that does not apply here.”
The judges who agreed the extraordinary ruling to keep the star’s identity a secret have today been accused of agreeing a “cheater's charter”.
Tory MP Alec Shelbrooke told : "This looks like a cheater’s charter.
“The ridiculous thing is that every single person knows who it is. It once again goes to prove that the richest profession in this country is the law."
The Elmet & Rothwell MP said he would not be using privilege to reveal the name as it was "not worth the effort".
But added: “It has become comical.
‘It does undermine the law when it is genuinely needed to protect people. It is making a mockery of the legal system.
"This is just someone who got too randy and doesn’t want people to know."
The one judge who said the injunction should be lifted was Lord Toulson.
He said: “There have been numerous twitter hashtags of a fairly obvious kind leading to material identifying PJS in connection with the injunction."
Lord Toulson added: “In the world in which PJS lives, knowledge of the story must be commonplace and it is apparent from the evidence that the circle of those who know is much wider.
“The story in its essential details has been published in a major Scottish newspaper, it has been widely accessible on websites and twitter, and anyone who seriously wanted to know PJS’s identity will have had ways of finding it.”
At a previous hearing at the Court of Appeal Lord Justice Jackson admitted: “Knowledge of the relevant matters is now so widespread that confidentiality has probably been lost.
''Much of the harm which the injunction was intended to prevent has already occurred.''
He added: ''The court should not make orders which are ineffective. It is, in my view, inappropriate (some may use a stronger term) for the court to ban people from saying that which is common knowledge.''
But today the Supreme Court justices came to a different conclusion.
The Sun on Sunday was banned from reporting on the extra marital sex romps after a court said they could stay secret.
The affair, which is admitted by PJS, lasted several years, with the final sexual encounter being the threesome.
It began after PJS swapped messages with one half of the couple on Facebook.
The trio splashed in a paddling pool filled with olive oil and the celeb suggested the “three-way” sessions in lust-filled messages to their sex partner.
The Court of Appeal barred the newspaper from revealing details of the pair’s “open relationship”.
It said the privacy of the couple’s children was a “relevant factor” in the judgment.
Timeline of a legal farce
January 15 - Application for an injunction is dismissed by the High Court, but celeb appeals.
January 22 - Injunction is granted by two court of appeal judges which blocked publication of our proposed article “until trial or further order”.
March 23 – We reveal how a judge has stopped The Sun on Sunday from naming the couple.
March 27 – Stars reportedly "on a knife-edge", fearing their identities will be leaked online.
April 6 – Couple named in America.
April 7 - Tory MP Philip Davies brands the situation a “farce” that was making an “ass out of the law”.
April 10 - Scottish newspaper prints a front-page picture of the couple. It said under the photo: “America knows. The Internet knows. The whole world knows. Now Scotland knows.”
April 11 - Political blogger posts details.
April 14 - Gagging order breached by a publication in England for the first time by a Chinese paper, printed in London. An online privacy firm – claiming to act on behalf of the celeb - asks Google to remove internet links referring to it.
April 15 - Judges at the Court of Appeal admit anyone can find the names of the couple widely reported on the internet.
April 18 - Appeal judges say the injunction should be lifted - but keep temporary gag pending a final appeal.
April 21 - Supreme Court judges decide to delay the decision over whether to lift the injunction, saying they would announce their decision at a later date.
Today - Supreme Court upholds the gagging order leaving readers in England and Wales still in the dark