Contact us:

    My Name is:

    My Email Address is:

    My Telephone Number is:

    A summary of my enquiry and what I am looking to achieve is:

    BLACKMAIL : FINAL INJUNCTIONS : FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION : HARASSMENT : MISUSE OF PRIVATE INFORMATION : RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE : APPLICANTS’ SEXUAL AND FAMILY LIFE : BALANCING RIGHT TO PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE WITH FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION : WHETHER PRIVATE INFORMATION OUGHT TO BE DISCLOSED : PROTECTION FROM HARASSMENT ACT 1997 s.3(1), s.3(3) : EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 1950  : HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 s.12


    It was appropriate to grant a permanent injunction preventing an individual from disclosing private information about the applicants’ sexual relationship and family life and from harassing them, as the applicants’ rights under the  European Convention on Human Rights art.8 substantially outweighed the individual’s  art.10, and no good grounds had been advanced to justify disclosure of the private information.


    The applicants (S and P) applied for a permanent injunction pursuant to the  Protection from Harassment Act 1997 s.3(1) and  s.3(3) restraining the respondent (X) from revealing the details of their relationship, harassing them and from approaching their residential and business addresses.


    S had been married with children, but was having a clandestine relationship with P. P had twins of which S was the father. X was the boyfriend of P’s friend. S was presented with a package and a letter revealing intimate details of his relationship with P and a demand for £1.5 million to prevent the information being revealed. Further contact was made with S and P, following which S engaged private investigators who discovered X’s involvement. X denied involvement and arranged a meeting with S at a fitness centre.

     
    S alleged that X had admitted his involvement, stated that P had been deceiving S, provided his girlfriend’s bank details and sought £10,000 . S further alleged that X made subsequent repeated requests for ?10,000, which S eventually paid after further threats. X asserted that S wanted him to refurbish his office and had given him a £10,000 deposit. The issues were whether (i) there had been a threat to disclose private information concerning the applicants and harassment of them which should be restrained by a permanent injunction; (ii) the court be satisfied that X was responsible for the threats and harassment if they had occurred.


    HELD: (1) X was responsible, which he admitted, for the letter and package and subsequent documents addressed to S. X had sought the meeting with S after he had been approached by private investigators. He was alive to the possibility of surveillance as a result and therefore suggested meeting at a fitness centre to foil any surveillance attempts. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss blackmail threats and therefore it was implausible that S, who believed that X was his blackmailer, would have discussed business with X much less have engaged him to do a job or have agreed to pay him a £10,000 deposit without an estimate of likely work. Further, there was no evidence as to what X had done with the £10,000 and X had received that money at a time when, on his evidence, he was in financial difficulties. X’s conduct clearly fell within the 1997 Act. It was necessary to grant the permanent injunction against X as he had denied the alleged conduct and had stated that he would resort to the mass media if the court did not fairly assess the situation. Whilst it imposed a significant restriction upon X, it was necessary to protect the applicants from disclosure of their private information (see paras 58-63, 65 of judgment).

     
    (2) There had been threats by X to disclose the applicants’ private information and harassment of them. In balancing their competing rights under the  European Convention on Human Rights art.8 and  art.10, the information in question was private and no good grounds had been advanced to justify its disclosure pursuant art.10. X’s art.10 rights were weak and were substantially outweighed by the applicants’ privacy rights. P speaking to her friends about her pregnancy was not sufficient to bring that information into the public domain as identified in the  Human Rights Act 1998 s.12 0234) (para.64).


    Application granted

     

    [2012] EWHC 2236 (QB)

    (1) SKA (2) PLM v (1) CRH (2) PERSONS UNKNOWN (2012)


    QBD (Nicola Davies J) 31/07/2012


    “Lawtel Update” 13.08.12