Poi v Lina, The Person Known As

Interim protection for private information may be granted without notifying the respondent where notification presents a real risk of the threatened publication. Under Human Rights Act 1998, s 12, the court must be satisfied that there are compelling reasons for proceeding without notice and that the applicant is likely to establish that publication should not be allowed. The court must balance the applicant’s rights under article 8 against any competing article 10 rights. An anonymity order is justified only where it is strictly necessary in the interests of justice, including where identification could enable private information to be deduced and undermine protection against blackmail.

The claimant applied without notice for an injunction restraining publication of private photographs, video material and information identifying him. The respondent, identified as Lina, did not appear or have legal representation.

The evidence indicated that the material was obtained without the claimant’s consent in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy. There was also evidence of attempted blackmail and a risk that notification would result in publication. The court therefore considered whether interim relief, anonymity and related restrictions were justified.

1. The court granted an injunction restraining publication of private information, including the photographs, video and information identifying the claimant.
2. Proceeding without notice was justified under Human Rights Act 1998, s 12(2)(b), because there were compelling reasons not to notify the respondent. Notification created a real risk that the publication sought to be prevented would occur.
3. For the purposes of s 12(3), the claimant was likely to establish that publication should not be allowed. The court had regard to the matters specified in s 12(4). There was no real likelihood that the respondent could establish, or even advance, a public-interest argument for publication.
4. The claimant had a strong case that his article 8 rights were engaged. Any article 10 rights relied upon by the respondent were, on the material before the court, very weak. The interim balance therefore favoured protection of the claimant’s article 8 rights, although that conclusion remained open to review at the return date and at trial.
5. An anonymity order was strictly necessary in the interests of justice. Identification could enable persons aware of the proceedings and existing public information to deduce further private information, defeating the policy of protecting alleged victims of blackmail.