INJUNCTIONS: coverage of Royal story prompts plea

Libel lawyers this week called for more specialist judges to hear injunctions and for measures to improve relations between the judiciary and the press in the wake of The Guardian's successful application to lift the libel injunction of former Royal servant, Michael Fawcett.

The Guardian wanted to report that he had won a separate injunction to stop the Mail on Sunday reporting a story involving the Royal family.

Siobhan Butterworth, the Guardian's in-house lawyer, said the Judicial Studies Board could work on getting more judges to understand better what the press aims to do and what it is permitted to do.

She said: 'Judges often approach such [libel injunction] hearings on the basis of what the public interest in the story is, rather than - as they should - on the basis of freedom of speech, asking "why should a newspaper not publish this story?"'

The Gazette's media law columnist, Amber Melville-Brown, a consultant with London-based David Price Solicitors & Advocates, said: 'In a country that values free speech, the press is allowed...

to "publish and be damned", that is to publish first and bear the consequences later.

'That right should not be interfered with by the courts where the defendant can show that he intends to show that the allegations are true, are fair comment or are privileged.'

While there is a case for more specialist judges, she said there may be a problem with having them on constant call.

Jeremy Fleming