Abstract
ABSTRACT Injunctions are a contentious issue between the judiciary and the press. What the press wishes to publish has sometimes been restricted by the judiciary through the issuing of injunctions. Nonetheless, there have been instances in which injunctions have not been respected. First, members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords have used parliamentary privilege to name individuals. The development of technology also means that information travels quicker and without the hindrance of borders. As a consequence, the second way in which injunctions can be undermined is by information being published in other jurisdictions. Thirdly, identities can be revealed on social media. This article states that, despite these instances undermining injunctions, they are still valuable. This is due to their changing nature from protecting secrets to protecting individuals from intrusion and therefore there is still value in injunctions remaining in place to protect public figures from media frenzies.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
