You can't stand up in front of a judge, confess to a serious crime and ask him to sign off on an injunction preventing it from being reported.
Who said he would confess to it? All he has to do is concince the judge it is potentially libellous and not in the public interest. Dont think the accusation even gets discussed.
of course the accusation gets discussed or else the judge would be wondering when the injunction was broke if the paper ran a different story
A newspaper cant take someone to court over something like statutory rape and get a conviction. That is for the CPS, the court case surrounding the injunction would all center around the impact of accusation made in the paper and whether it would be in the public interest.
i cant believe this guy is claiming you can go to a COURT OF LAW to get an injunction over a CRIME! I think they might perhaps think of prosecuting if he turned up claiming an injunction for that. Would be a bit like turning up and saying i dont want the papers reporting the murder i committed...
Indeed. And a high court judge would (obviously) not grant a gagging order to prevent publication of this.
Anyway it matters **** all as I have been shown what I had been told was false and so I will hold my hands up to that, il research such claims better in the future. But please come down off your high horse and dont start viewing SG as a saint compared to Barton. Barton in admitting to his mistakes, making a complete revision of his lifestyle and attitudes and sticking to it (sipping tea while rest of squad sipped champagne after winning c,ship) shows a maturity far beyond Gerrard who went to the ends of the earth denying assaulting the DJ despite footage and many witness accounts of it.
All the cheating Spanish twats but No.1 has to be El Hadj Diouf. The rancid bastard should be banned from football altogether and put down!!!!!
Thick ****! The injunction proceedings centre around whether the paper has the right to print the story. They would be accusing him of a crime but as he would not have been convicted yet the chances are an injunction would have been granted while the CPS followed up investigations. So obviously, as i have admitted, the claim is false so it matters **** all. However there is every chance that in this situation the paper may have information strongly linking person x to a criminal act, not enough to provide a concrete conviction, so person x remains free with injunction still in place. The secrecy around the whole thing would hide the fact that the CPS ever got involved. Alot of evidence papers use is not usable in court due to methods used to obtain it, yet the evidence itself has quite a solid foundation to it.
What are you blathering about? An injunction is ordered to protect someones privacy and is used to gag stories that are not in the public interest. A judge would have to know exactly what that story was and then decide for himself if it was in the public interest or not. If there were allegations of *****philia he would be duty bound to pass this on to the CPS or issue an arrest warrant himself. An injunction hearing does not concern itself with what evidence the paper has, how it was obtained or even whether the allegations are true or false. That is published entirely at the newspapers own risk and can be challenged separately in a civil libel court.
You are tying yourself in knots here man. I have already stated that the evidence does not get discussed at the injunction hearing yet was called thick now you are saying the exact same thiing now it suits you. If the accusation has not been proven then it cannot be printed, despite public interest. I have also said the CPS would get involved but would probably be left uing alot of evidence the paperr had gathered which alot of the time is unusable! "An injunction hearing does not concern itself with what evidence the paper has, how it was obtained or even whether the allegations are true or false. That is published entirely at the newspapers own risk and can be challenged separately in a civil libel court." - I believe I have pretty much said that. However the difference between libel and an injunction is that libel is for trying to repair a shattered reputation after unproven claims have been published and an injuction is to prevent a the shattering of a reputation by preventing the publishing of unproven claims. Generally when it comes to that, even if the paper has pretty solid evidence but unusable due to method acquired, the claim will stand as unproven.
You don't know what you are talking about and you're not making much sense. Let me explain. Super Injunctions are granted to protect a claimants privacy. So, if a judge thinks that the story is not in the public interest, he will grant the order. Criminal allegations will be deemed in the public interest. Newspapers are absolutely entitled to print allegations of criminal misconduct. Indeed, many high profile prosecutions have occurred as a direct result of media investigations. They print their accusations then pass their evidence to the CPS. Hypothetically, if Steven Gerrard tried to get a super injunction to gag a story that he had sex with a child, he would have to convince a judge that this story is not in the public interest. Whether it has foundation or not is not discussed at this hearing - the only thing under consideration at this point is whether it's in the public interest. Of course it would be in the public interest, so the judge would not issue the order. As such, the newspaper would print the story. At this point, one of two things would happen, Steven Gerrard would likely be investigated by the police and possibly arrested. If there were any truth in the story, he may face additional charges of perjury for lying to a high court judge. He may also decide to pursue a libel case against the newspaper, and ask for an apology, retraction and damages. Do I have to go on? Tell me you are starting to understand this?
