"J.P.H." v "XYZ" and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Popplewell |
| Judgment Date | 10 October 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 2871 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: Not allocated |
| Date | 10 October 2015 |
[2015] EWHC 2871 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice, Strand
London, WC2A 2LL
The Hon. Mr Justice Popplewell
Case No: Not allocated
Ms Michalos (instructed by Schillings Int. LLP) for the Claimant
Without Notice
Hearing dates: 10 October 2015
On Saturday 10 October 2015 I granted an interim non-disclosure order restraining the disclosure or publication of images and information in a so called "revenge porn" case. These are my reasons, in brief.
The Claimant is a successful professional actor. JPH had been in a relationship with XYZ for a number of months, during the course of which a number of photographs and videos were taken on devices belonging to JPH which portrayed nudity and sexual activity. On the afternoon and early evening of Friday 9 October 2015, XYZ sent a series of communications to JPH threatening to post the images on social media and/or to cause them to be published in magazines. It appeared that XYZ's motive was revenge for JPH having brought the relationship to an end; and, it is to be inferred, with a possible view to persuading JPH to resume the relationship. XYZ also sent an email to a former partner of JPH in which XYZ gave graphic details of alleged sexual activity by JPH whilst in a relationship with XYZ, and later sent the former partner two explicit videos. During the communications with JPH, XYZ stated that locked files with copies of the images had been lodged with two unidentified friends who would be authorised to cause them to be published should the police become involved. This was the reason for adding Persons Unknown as Second Defendants.
On the morning of Saturday 10 October 2015, shortly before the beginning of the hearing, a small number of the still images appeared on a website in circumstances from which it is to be inferred that they had been posted by or at the instigation of XYZ. By the time of the hearing JPH had succeeded in removing them from the site.
The application was made without notice. There were compelling reasons for doing so, in accordance with s. 12(2)(b) Human Rights Act 1998, because XYZ's conduct justified the belief that if prior notice were given there was a real risk that disclosure would occur before the hearing could take place so as to defeat its purpose.
The hearing was held in public. It was possible to do so without defeating the purpose of the order because:
(1) I made orders protecting the anonymity of JPH and XYZ. I was satisfied that this was necessary because some of the images had been put on a website, and the fact of JPH's previous relationship with XYZ was in the public domain. If a person who was aware of both those matters learnt that JPH had issued these proceedings or that they had been brought against XYZ, they would be able to deduce information about the content of the material or the circumstances in which the images were created which JPH is entitled to have protected by an interim non-disclosure order. Anonymity of JPH alone would be insufficient to protect against this risk because identification of XYZ might enable identification of JPH to be made. The principles in AMM v HXW (2010) EWHC 2457 (QB) apply.
(2) The images and information of which JPH was seeking to prevent disclosure were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Recognising the Role of the Emotion of Fear in Offences and Defences
...offences (Revised Communi-cations Act 2003, ss 127(1) and 127(2) Triable only summarily- Maximum: Unlimited fine and/or 6 months.70. [2015] EWHC 2871.71. See also Re J (a child) (contra mundum injunction) [2013] EWHC 2694 (Fam), [2013] All ER (D) 45 (September). BFLS1A[100]; CHM 11[1]; Rayd......