Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Celebrities who took out "super-injunctions" to prevent the media revealing details of their private lives were granted a further period of anonymity yesterday.
Mr Justice Tugendhat, sitting at the High Court in London, considered a series of injunctions taken out by individuals against Rupert Murdoch's News Group Newspapers between November 2010 and May 2011. Although the judge discharged the injunctions, he kept in place anonymity orders preventing the identification of the claimants who brought them. "It is necessary for the anonymity orders to remain in force," he said.
One of the cases he considered concerned the former Royal Bank of Scotland boss, Sir Fred Goodwin, who was exposed by Lord Stoneham. In May last year, the peer used parliamentary privilege to reveal details of Sir Fred's injunction. Lord Justice Tugendhat ruled that an anonymity order should remain active to protect another party in the matter from being identified.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments