Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWHC 1334 (QB)
Case No: HQ11X01432
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 23/05/2011

Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :

	CTB
	Claimant	
	- and -
		
	(1) NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LIMITED
(2) IMOGEN THOMAS	
Defendants	

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hugh Tomlinson QC and Sara Mansoori (instructed by Schillings) for the Claimant
Richard Spearman QC (instructed by Farrer & Co) for the First Defendant
David Price QC (of David Price Solicitors & Advocates) for the Second Defendant

Hearing date: 23 May 2011
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment

Mr Justice Tugendhat : 

1.	At about 1430 this afternoon Eady refused NGN’s application to remove the anonymity he had granted to the claimant on 20 April. He said at para 23 ([2011] EWHC 1326 (QB)) that “It is important always to remember that the modern law of privacy is not concerned solely with secrets: it is also concerned importantly with intrusion”. Intrusion in this sense includes harassment.
2.	Very shortly afterwards a name was mentioned by Mr Hemming MP in the House of Commons in the course of a question which was interrupted by the Speaker. On that basis NGN asked me to hear a further application shortly after 5pm for the anonymity of the claimant to be removed. As the public now know, anyone who wanted to find out the name of the claimant could have learnt it many days ago. The reason is that it is has been repeated thousands of times on the internet. NGN now want to join in. 
3.	It is obvious that if the purpose of this injunction were to preserve a secret, it would have failed in its purpose. But in so far as its purpose is to prevent intrusion or harassment, it has not failed. The fact that tens of thousands of people have named the claimant on the internet confirms that the claimant and his family need protection from intrusion into their private and family life. The fact that a question has been asked in Parliament seems to me to increase, and not to diminish the strength of his case that he and his family need that protection. The order has not protected the claimant and his family from taunting on the internet. It is still effective to protect them from taunting and other intrusion and harassment in the print media.