1
2
3
+
5
བ
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34 35 36
Date:
Time:
Reporter:
24.8.87
10 11 am
CNB/7
"Prior restraint of publication is a serious interference
with the freedom of the press and the important constitutional right to free/of speech. Those freedoms, however, are not absolute. As Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights recognises, they are subject to such restrictions as are necessary in a democratic society, inter alia, in the interests of national security or for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence. In British Steel Corporation v Granada Television Ltd Lord Fraser recognised what he described as a very strong public interest in preserving confidentiality within any organisation in order that it can operate efficiently and also be free from suspicion that it is harbouring disloyal employees. The right to prevent the disclosure of information received in confidence, however, is also not an absolute right for it too is subject to exceptions. The Court, for example, will not restrain the disclosure of unlawful acts or other misconduct to those with a proper interest to receive it, and in an appropriate case the public interest may require disclosure to the press and general public.
See Initial Services v Putterill and Fraser v Evans where Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, said: 'There are some things which are of such public concern that the newspapers, the press and, indeed, everyone is entitled to make known the truth and to make fair comment upon it.'
In Lion Laboratories v Evans and others it was held that in an exceptional case the public interest might require the publication of confidential information even though no mis- conduct or impropriety was alleged. In that case the Court of Appeal laid down the approach to be adopted when the conflict between these two competing public interests fell to be resolved before the trial. The conflict, it was held, should be resolved in favour of restraint unless the Court is satisfied by the defendant that there is a serious defence of public interest which may succeed at the trial. Before I accede to the applications to discharge the injunctions, therefore, I must be satisfied that there is a legitimate ground for supposing not that disclosure would be of interest to the public but that it would be in the public interest and for supposing also that that interest outweighs the conflicting public interest in favour of preserving confidentiality. It is not in my view necessary or useful to consider whether that is an exception to the principles established by the American Cyanamid case or an application of those principles in special circumstances where the public interest is invoked on both sides and where, as I am satisfied is the present case, pecuniary compensation La dilled pull only Luudoymule bub wholly
be nuk inappropriate.
In resolving the conflict I must take all relevant considera- tions into account and in my judgment these must include the facts that this is an interlocutory application and not the trial, that the injunctions sought are only temporary and not
VERBATIM REPORTERS
HONG KONG
5-8496480 5-497048 5-8496981 5-8932546 5-8122436
00%
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.