Talk:Super-injunctions in English law

Widening needed

This topic will be more relevant in the future as governments seek to keep more things secret. It has now emerged that Australia uses super-injunctions, too. What would also be interesting, is whether or not these secrecy/concealment methods through super-injunctions exist in other jursdictions, too, and if yes, in what variations. My curiosity had been aroused by the Michael Loch McGurk case in Sydney. Shot in September 2009 point blank in the street, the snippets of his life-story that appeared in the press appeared to be 'interesting', so I wanted to order the book. It became unavailable as soon as it appeared. From what I have followed on the few occasions that I thought looking, this book seems to have been felled by a super-injunction. This is censorship and an abuse of the judicial process unless McGurk's story would reveal secret service activities. Maybe the Australian censors managed to kill the book worldwide? 121.209.56.25 (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expertise

I feel this article could benefit from someone with expertise as there are a few cases incorrectly refered to as super-injunctions. DanielJCooper (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale

I think this page could benefit from being expanded to include what the rationale is behind the super and hyper injunctions. Why would a normal injunction be insufficient to protect the interests of one of the parties involved? Super and hyper injunctions appear to be limited to the UK (although there is some indication something akin was used in Australia) so I think an explanation of the underlying principles would be beneficial for the wider world. 99.241.165.43 (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd

I don't think that CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd was ever a super-injunction, as there was a transcript of David Eady's decision in the case on BAILII.[1] The same may be true of some of the others mentioned here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation about further Super-Injunctions?

Seeing the now upcoming information: "UK experts taking AZ jab concerns 'very seriously' [07.04.21] 12:04:00 Member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), which advises British health services on those processes, Adam Finn, said on Wednesday the body was "very seriously" and "thoroughly" investigating the potential links between AstraZeneca PLC and Oxford University's jab against COVID-19 and the creation of blood clots.

Finn told BBC Radio 4 the previously observed cases "stand out and make[s] us think that this is something a little bit different and out of the norm." Still, he noted there had so far been only 30 such occurrences noted in 18 million people that received AstraZeneca's vaccine.

Earlier, the United Kingdom's Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) advised the country's medical workers to continue inoculating people with the jab despite pending examinations." http://www.breakingthenews.net/news/details/55123285 There could be cases where information was hidden. Up to case where people died but this has has not been reported and the names where kept out of public.

Further, is there information hidden in favour of Transgender e.g. about the Tavistock Clinic in the Keira Bell Case? https://www.economist.com/britain/2020/12/01/the-judgment-in-keira-bells-case-upsets-trans-groups

Not to forget the Snowden relevations? And whats about UK Family law? Including cases of UK forced adoptions?