Top soccer player Ryan Giggs named in UK parliament as sportsman with injunction preventing details of affair with glamour model Imogen Thomas being published


  • Shock in UK Commons as soccer player's name finally emerges
  • Thousands of fans had chanted his name at match
  • Prime Minister's spokesman refuses to comment on 'individual cases'

The British soccer player at the centre of a gagging order over his affair with glamour model Imogen Thomas was named today in the UK House of Commons as Manchester United star Ryan Giggs.

Liberal Democrat MP John Hemmings used parliamentary privilege to name the player, saying 75,000 people had already outed him on Twitter.

Naming Giggs, he added that it would be 'impracticable' to imprison everyone on the website who had previously tweeted his identity.

Scroll down to see a video of the dramatic events inside the UK House of Commons today

Ryan Giggs with his children Zach and Libby
Imogen Thomas out and about in London today

Outed: Ryan Giggs, yesterday, celebrating with his two children Zach and Libby while Imogen Thomas was spotted leaving London today

The case has sparked much controversy in Britain with some arguing it is not in the public's interest to disclose personal details about the alleged affair. Others say with the name so easily found on social networking sites, any official injunction has become redundant.

During an extraordinary afternoon today in the British Parliament, Mr Hemming named the star just minutes after the English High Court refused to lift a ban on naming Giggs.

UK Commons Speaker John Bercow immediately leapt out of his seat and rebuked Mr Hemmings in an effort to try to protect the Manchester United player's identity.

After the event Mr Bercow said sternly: 'Let me just say to the honourable gentleman, I know he's already done it, but occasions such as this are occasions for raising the issues of principle involved, not seeking to flout for whatever purpose.'

Following the revelation thousands of people once again took to Twitter to spread word Giggs had finally been outed.

Stacey Cooke appeared at Old Trafford with the couple's two children as the club celebrated winning the Premier League

Stacey Cooke appeared at Old Trafford with the couple's two children as the club celebrated winning the Premier League

The Prime Minister's spokesman this afternoon refused to comment on individual cases, although David Cameron had earlier admitted to knowing who it was.

The Attorney General Dominic Grieve, who would be responsible for any prosecution for contempt, had earlier said during a Parliamentary debate on the injunction issue: 'It is our duty as parliamentarians to uphold the rule of law.'

The row provoked one of the biggest acts of civil disobedience in modern times and David Cameron branded the orders 'unsustainable' and 'unfair'.

Giggs had mounted a desperate campaign to keep his name secret, not only taking out an injunction but also threatening to sue Twitter users for leaking his name.

Earlier this afternoon UK judge Mr Justice Eady rejected a fresh application by News Group Newspapers to discharge the privacy injunction relating to CTB - the initials used to identify Ryan Giggs to the court - on the basis that to continue it would be 'futile', given recent widespread publicity about his identity.

The judge said: 'It has never been suggested, of course, that there is any legitimate public interest, in the traditional sense, in publishing this information.

'The court's duty remains to try and protect the claimant, and particularly his family, from intrusion and harassment so long as it can.'

Soon after the failed bid to have the injunction lifted, Attorney General Dominic Grieve announced that Mr Cameron would write to MP John Whittingdale to set up a joint committee to study the issue.

The Prime Minister made the comments when he appeared on ITV's Daybreak show. Here he is pictured with Christine Bleakley and Adrian Chiles

The Prime Minister made the comments about the gagging orders when he appeared on ITV's Daybreak show yesterday. Here he is pictured with Christine Bleakley and Adrian Chiles

This morning, speaking to UK TV channel ITV1's Daybreak, the Prime Minister indicated that he knew the identity of the footballer 'like everybody else' but stressed that there was no 'simple answer' and ministers needed to take 'some time out'.

Giggs's face was yesterday published by a Scottish newspaper, the Glasgow-based Sunday Herald. Today, India's leading newspaper the Times Of India printed a picture of the footballer and used his name three times in a report about the injunction.

The Times of India also identified the British TV presenter and journalist who is facing a possible jail sentence after he allegedly breached a separate injunction.

Tweets about the footballer and his injunction
Tweets about the footballer and his injunction

Within hours of the player launching his legal challenge thousands of tweets about him and the relationship appeared on the site. Here are some of them with the player's name blacked out

The number of people tweeting the footballer's name since Friday reached 56,000 by mid-afternoon

The number of people tweeting the footballer's name since Friday reached 56,000 by mid-afternoon

The journalist is said to have named a second soccer player trying to stop reports of an alleged affair. He was also named by the Indian paper.

The story was printed on the back page of the newspaper - the biggest-selling English language paper in India.

No reference was made to the story on its website, which is available to internet users in England and Wales.

The Times of India claims to be the highest-circulating English language newspaper in the world, selling 3.4million copies a day.  It is read by around 7million Indians every day.

The paper was founded in 1838 and its first editor was an Englishman, Robert Knight, who ‘fought for a press free of government restraint or intimidation’.

Soccer fans in the UK yesterday mockingly chanted the player's name at a match with a worldwide audience. And he was mentioned more than 30,000 times on Twitter, helping to ensure that anyone still unaware of his identity can discover it with a few clicks of a mouse.

Mr Cameron said: 'It is rather unsustainable, this situation, where newspapers can't print something that clearly everybody else is talking about, but there's a difficulty here because the law is the law and the judges must interpret what the law is.

'What I've said in the past is, the danger is that judgements are effectively writing a new law which is what Parliament is meant to do.

'So I think the Government, Parliament has got to take some time out, have a proper look at this, have a think about what we can do, but I'm not sure there is going to be a simple answer.'

Enlarge   Graphic showing online searches for the footballer from across the world. Note the dramatic rise after news broke on Friday that he was taking action against Twitter

Graphic showing online searches for the footballer from across the world. Note the dramatic rise after news broke on Friday that he was taking action against Twitter

This graph shows online searches from within the UK since the beginning of May. Again, from a fairly constant level it suddenly shoots up on Friday

This graph shows online searches from within the UK since the beginning of May. Again, from a fairly constant level it suddenly shoots up on Friday

Enlarge   Worldwide interest in the player surges towards the end of the month

Again measuring from the start of May, worldwide interest in the player surges towards the end of the month

Mr Cameron suggested that one route might be to strengthen the UK Press Complaints Commission.

'It's not fair on the newspapers if all the social media can report this and the newspapers can't, so the law and the practice has got to catch up with how people consume media today,' he said.

'But I don't think there is an easy answer on this. Perhaps the way through is to look again at the Press Complaints Commission, the work it does. If people can have more confidence in that then we could have less of this current approach.

'But we are going to have to take some time out to really have a think about this.'

Labour leader Ed Miliband said he agreed that the privacy law situation in the UK 'does need to be looked at'.

'We have got a situation where we have these rulings on privacy, clearly many people are being able to break them through social networks, through Twitter and so on, and I don't think that's a good position to be in, when the law is clearly not working,' he told Sky News.

Twitter
Twitter

Twitter

The censored Twitter messages of an international TV star, a pop singer, an author and a comedian

Twitter messages brought out by a TV star, a pop singer, an author and a comedian with references as to the identity of the player blacked out

Spotlight: Former Big Brother star Imogen Thomas (L) shopping with a friend at the weekend

Spotlight: Former Big Brother star Imogen, left, shopping with a friend over the weekend

'So I do think that Parliament needs to look at this. Parliament really needs to look at the balance between respecting the privacy of the individual and the freedom of the Press to report things which are in the public interest, and it's right that Parliament needs to look at it.'

The dramatic backlash took its cue from MPs and peers who have spoken against injunctions. It left judges facing an overwhelming task if they try to maintain the gagging order while preserving any shreds of respect for the courts and their privacy laws.

One MP suggested that only a minority of people have not now heard a name for the Premier League footballer, who was granted a privacy injunction in April which forbade publication of his name or allegations that he had a six-month affair with former UK Big Brother contestant Imogen Thomas.

Internet speculation on his identity began within a week, was fuelled by an MP who blurted out his name during the recording of a television programme, and was helped along by Miss Thomas, who has complained frequently that she can be named and her reputation has been traduced.

Twitter

The Glasgow-based Sunday Herald yesterday published a picture of the player on its front page, clearly identifiable despite a bar placed over his eyes.

It named him inside the paper and added that his action against Twitter ‘raises questions over the future of free speech on social media sites’.

The paper has a circulation of just over 30,000, which means it is likely to be read by between 75,000 and 100,000 people.

The effect of English privacy injunctions in Scotland has been a legal grey area. Scotland has a separate legal system and in the landmark Spycatcher case in 1986, Scottish newspapers ignored English judges and published material from the banned book by a former MI5 agent.

But Scottish newspapers circulate in England and their editors have been careful until now to stick by the letter of privacy injunctions.

Paul McBride QC, the Sunday Herald's legal adviser, said it was unacceptable for unelected judges to make the decisions to grant injunctions in private.

 

Poll

Was MP right to name Ryan Giggs as super-injunction footballer?

Was MP right to name Ryan Giggs as super-injunction footballer?

  • Yes 34436 votes
  • No 11636 votes

Now share your opinion

  •  
  •  

Speaking on BBC Radio Scotland's Good Morning Scotland programme, Mr McBride said there needed to be a debate about the way forward over granting privacy injunctions.

He said: 'Parliament now have to look at this issue. We can't have unelected judges making these decisions in private when we have the internet out there where everyone can access the information they're trying to keep secret.

'We had the absurd position this week of even MPs in our democratically elected Parliament being threatened with potential contempt of court by using their parliamentary privilege to name people. That's not acceptable anymore.'

Mr McBride added: 'We're having this kind of surreal, parallel universe conversation where everyone with a mobile phone and access to the internet knows who the individual is but mainstream news organisations can't publish his name.

'In the case of the Sunday Herald, the decision was one of principle. The so-called super-injunction didn't apply in this particular jurisdiction and those representing the particular individual didn't take precautions to apply for an interdict in Scotland.

'In relation to the Sunday Herald article there was no discussion about the individual's private life it was simply to name him as the person who was using a tool of law which has widely now been brought into disrepute.'

Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond said it would be 'extremely foolish' for the Attorney General in England to try to start proceedings against a Scottish publication.

'I think it would be very, very unlikely that an Attorney General would be as foolish as to do so,' he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.

'I think the political issue is whether it is tenable to pursue this sort of injunction.

'I would have thought there is an increasing view it is untenable to do so. There is a whole question of what is of interest to the public and what is in the public interest, which can often be different things.

'But the law essentially is a practical thing. It looks to me like English law and English injunctions are increasingly impractical in the modern world.'

Mr Salmond ridiculed the idea that English court rules on any subject 'should pertain across the planet'.

The alleged soccer player’s name and a sexual allegation was chanted by his club’s supporters at a Premiership match yesterday. And he was mentioned in connection with the privacy case in the online reference site Wikipedia.

Lib Dem MP John Hemming, who has campaigned against privacy injunctions, said: ‘This is an oppressive and sinister farce.’

Mr Hemming, who first identified disgraced banker Sir Fred Goodwin in connection with a super-injunction in the Commons, said: ‘The judges are trying to reverse the tide of civil disobedience with draconian attempts to suppress the truth.

‘But this is now the biggest wave of civil disobedience anyone can remember. There are at least 30,000 people defying the judges on the internet.’

He added: ‘People are finding that the more you try to suppress something on the internet, the more it is published. Attempts to silence the internet are much more in the interest of the lawyers than the footballers.’

The open defiance of the privacy laws, developed by judges on the back of Labour’s Human Rights Act, has mushroomed to unprecedented levels thanks to the internet.

Last week Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger, backed by Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, threatened to restrict reporting of Parliament in the attempt to shore up the effectiveness of secrecy injunctions.

The judges are to stage talks with Commons Speaker John Bercow and Lords Speaker Baroness Hayman to try to stop MPs and peers using Parliamentary privilege to name those who have been given injunctions.

Judges have also been told that in future privacy injunctions should ban anyone from gossiping about names involved, and newspapers should pass on the names of all journalists in the know to the lawyers of celebrities with injunctions.

Yesterday Tory MP Douglas Carswell said the law is ‘an ass’. He added: ‘Mr Bercow should remind the judges that the Commons is elected – and it is their Lordships’ appetite for self-aggrandisement that has left them looking asinine.'

Several celebrities, including XXXX XXXXXX, the broadcaster, author and XXXX XX XXXXXX columnist, XXX XXXXX, the singer, and the comedians XXXX XXXXXXX and XXX XXXX are among those who posted tweets at the weekend which either identified the star in connection to the relationship or heavily hinted at his involvement.

The attempt to silence Twitter may turn into an own goal because several of the celebrity tweeters have followings which far exceed the circulations of some of the newspapers the star is trying to silence.

Alan Stevens, who advises businesses on social media, said the attempt to silence Twitter was like ‘pouring petrol on the flames’.

He said: ‘It is like that famous scene in Spartacus where everyone puts their hand up and claims to be the hero of the piece.

‘Everyone on Twitter is now queuing up to name that footballer.

‘There are so many people out there talking about it, you might as well say you can’t talk on the phone or in the pub about something.’

TV star who tweeted footballer's name could be jailed... and NO ONE would know

For the first time in centuries someone could be sent to prison in Britain and no one would be allowed to know who they were.

The sinister scenario emerged yesterday when it was revealed a TV personality was facing jail for repeating the name of an England  footballer with a privacy injunction.

If the media personality is named in any trial for contempt of court then the footballer’s injunction will be effectively broken. So if judges are to keep to the terms of the injunction the trial is meant to protect, he cannot be named.

Hidden: The TV star who repeated the footballer's name on Twitter could be secretly sent to prison

Hidden: The TV star who repeated the footballer's name on Twitter could be secretly sent to prison

Yesterday they were warned that any move to imprison someone while keeping their identity secret would be ‘absolutely against the principles of open justice.’

The Kafka-esque twist in the privacy law row comes after a judge acted on complaints from the footballer’s lawyers. They protested his gagging order had been broken by the media celebrity on Twitter.

The complaint could end in a test-case trial for contempt of court and a range of possible punishments, from a minor fine up to imprisonment.

However at present the individual cannot be named, because to do so would be to break the footballer’s privacy injunction.

Although his Twitter postings which identified the footballer have been taken down, they have been copied by other websites and there is easily-discovered internet speculation linking the celebrity with the footballer.

No one is thought to have been sentenced and punished by English courts for centuries without being publicly named.

In the recent past a number of foreign terrorist suspects who were unnamed have been held in prison.  But their detention, which was stopped after a House of Lords ruling, did not follow trial and conviction, and they would have been released at any time if they had agreed to be deported.

They could also have allowed their names to be published if they had wished. The celebrity named the married footballer, who is alleged to have had an affair, in tweets during a recent notable football match. A series of messages joked at the player’s expense.

Last Thursday Mr Justice Tugendhat agreed to refer the celebrity’s behaviour to the Attorney General, who must decide whether to bring a prosecution for contempt. It was the first time a judge has sent an alleged breach of a privacy injunction for consideration for a contempt prosecution.

The Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, must decide whether it is in the public interest to bring a prosecution. If he recommends prosecution, the trial will go ahead in the Divisional Court, a section of the High Court, presided over by two senior judges. There would be no jury  so the celebrity could not hope to escape conviction because the ordinary people who compose a jury thought the charges against him were ridiculous.

A spokesman for the Attorney General said he had yet to receive the referral and was unable to comment. The celebrity, who appears in a popular BBC TV programme and writes for a major newspaper, said: ‘I don’t understand how it can be contempt of court but if it is I need to be quite careful about what is being said. The courts take contempt matters very seriously and I don’t want to get in any trouble with the courts.’

We are no longer accepting comments on this article.

Who is this week's top commenter? Find out now