Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Cabinet minister's teenage son loses £60,000 privacy battle

 

Jan Colley
Saturday 25 February 2012 01:00 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

This election is still a dead heat, according to most polls. In a fight with such wafer-thin margins, we need reporters on the ground talking to the people Trump and Harris are courting. Your support allows us to keep sending journalists to the story.

The Independent is trusted by 27 million Americans from across the entire political spectrum every month. Unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock you out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. But quality journalism must still be paid for.

Help us keep bring these critical stories to light. Your support makes all the difference.

The High Court has refused to continue a privacy injunction won by the teenage son of the Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman, as it was revealed that the court battle has so far cost the Spelman family £61,000.

The order continues until at least 4pm next Friday to give 17-year-old Jonathan Spelman, who is suing through his mother and his father Mark, an opportunity to ask the Court of Appeal for permission to challenge Mr Justice Tugendhat's ruling.

Mr Spelman, a talented rugby player who has represented England at youth level, was granted the order preventing the publication of sensitive personal information in the Daily Star Sunday by Mr Justice Lindblom at a private hearing earlier this month.

The judge said the information, which was leaked to the newspaper, attracted a reasonable expectation of privacy and publication would not advance the public interest.

But yesterday, Mr Justice Tugendhat concluded that it was "not necessary or proportionate" to continue the injunction.

The court heard that the Spelman family, who were not present, had already incurred legal costs of £60,994.

In his ruling, Mr Justice Tugendhat said his decision not to continue the injunction until any trial – which would not be before May – was not a "licence" for Express Newspapers or anyone else to publish whatever they chose, or indeed anything at all.

"It is simply a decision not to grant an injunction," he said. "If the defendant or anyone else does disclose private information about the claimant, then such disclosure may be the subject of a claim for damages."

Contesting the injunction application, Christina Michalos, counsel for Express Newspapers, had said the case was about "freedom of expression in its purest sense" and that the court should not muzzle the "watchdog function of the press".

She denied that the real motivation for the paper was political and focused on Mrs Spelman. "This is disputed strongly," she said. "We say there is an underlying public interest in the story itself."

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in