“The Supreme Court will hear argument as to whether permission to appeal should be granted, and, if it is granted, as to whether the appeal should be allowed or dismissed”.
Advertisement
“A decision whether to grant, or refuse, permission is expected to be made by the end of the day”, she added.
Editors of the tabloid newspaper want to publish an “account” of the man’s “sexual exploits” with others.
Desmond Browne QC, who headed the man’s legal team, told appeal judges that he wanted Supreme Court justices to examine the case after they chose to lift the ban which could see the celebrity who had extra-marital activities named in public.
The married man, whose spouse is also in the public eye, had until 10pm on Tuesday (19 April) to submit an appeal to the country’s highest court or else have the veil over his identity lifted.
Lord Justice Jackson, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Simon are listed to rule on the newspaper’s application on Monday after analysing evidence at a Court of Appeal hearing in London on Friday.
Allen-Back said that in the case about the celebrity PJS the Court of Appeal had rejected a submission by NGN that PJS’s privacy rights were no longer engaged.
But the Court of Appeal overruled that decision after hearing that naming him would devastating for him and could harm his children.
Furthermore, the judge pointed out that “the relatives, friends and business contacts of PJS and YMA all know perfectly well what it is alleged that PJS has been doing”.
Explaining the decision to overturn the gagging order, Lord Justice Jackson, sitting in the Court of Appeal, said the man’s name is now “widely known” and “circulating on the internet”.
Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Simon agreed with the judgment.
The man’s solicitors had been “assiduous” in monitoring the internet and removing stories in breach of the injunction but the judges said that it was now a “hopeless task”.
With reference to the discretionary nature of an injunction, Lord Justice Jackson commented that it “is in my view inappropriate … for the court to ban people from saying that which is common knowledge”.
The judge said this had “substantially affected” his considerations of the balance between the celebrity’s right to privacy and the media’s right to publish.
In January, the two other parties approached the Sun On Sunday with the story.
Advertisement
The three appeal judges did not identify the celebrity but referred to him as “PJS”.
