A CELEB couple at the centre of a gagging order against The Sun on Sunday have been named in America.
And yesterday the couple’s names were published in the US in reports which revealed how the husband had enjoyed extra-marital threesome with two other lovers.
Their outing comes after two Appeal Court judges overturned another judge’s decision not to grant an injunction to the married celebrity, referred to in court papers as PJS.
This stopped The Sun on Sunday publishing a story about his threesome with another couple.
But the celebs still fear further exposure on social media, as happened to Ryan Giggs in 2011 when he tried to stop Imogen Thomas revealing their affair.
A source said: “Being named in America and online is what they have long feared.
“They have spent a great deal of money trying to keep this a secret and it is now well and truly out in the open.”
We were barred from revealing how one half of the famous couple committed adultery, including the three-way, in a ruling that has shocked the legal and media worlds.
Two Court of Appeal judges, Lord Justice Rupert Jackson and Lady Justice Eleanor King, overturned an earlier ruling not to grant an injunction to “PJS”.
The multi-millionaire public figure and his spouse regularly court publicity using their children.
Yet the bizarre ruling means that despite the extra-marital affair the judges decided they were a “committed” married couple.
It means the husband’s right to cheat is ruled more important than the public’s right to know.
The written ruling, made in January but published last month, made it clear PJS and his spouse “YMA” were in an open relationship and the fact they had children was a “relevant consideration”.
The couple who had the threesome with PJS were furious at being prevented from revealing the truth.
There were even text messages between the husband and his two lovers about a "threeway."
One said: “Using your children for publicity and then for protection from it is disgraceful.
“We cannot tell anyone what happened to us and it seems that the couple have extra rights.
“Publishing this story would send a message to celebs that they cannot get away with any old behaviour and then use the courts to cover it up.”
The decision has sparked fury over the use of children to defend adultery and its implications for free speech.
Press freedom campaigner and author Mick Hume accused the judges of allowing the couple to use their children as “human shields”.
He said: “Even those of us who care little about the sex lives of celebrities should care about the Court of Appeal slapping a gag on The Sun on Sunday.
“This is a disgrace and sets a dangerous standard in allowing judges to dictate what the public should be allowed to know."
And John Hemming, the former Lib Dem MP who exposed Ryan Giggs's infidelity in the House of Commons in 2011, said it left judges looking out of touch.
"King Canute showed he could not hold back the waves, and he was making a point that our judges would be wise to learn from," he said.
Mr Hemming, who now runs the pressure group Justice for Families, added: 'The judiciary in London have to understand that their rulings only go as far as the edge of England and Wales.
"They have no effect in the rest of the world, and, as was demonstrated during the Giggs affair, they do not even apply in Scotland.
"Those wealthy people who think they can use expensive lawyers to suppress freedom of speech will, I hope, be beginning to realise that it doesn't work."
Speaking about the injunction in a Radio 4 discussion yesterday, a top lawyer blasted the decision to gag The Sun on Sunday.
Media lawyer Mark Stephens, of Finers Stephens Innocent said the celebrity couple were allowed to “throw the children under the bus”.
He said: “What we’ve got now is a watershed moment.
“The rich and famous with children are now going to be able to put forward these saccharine images and their primped and preened images by their spin doctors to the public.
“We are seeing children thrown under the legal bus to prevent stories coming out.
“One of the judges was a family law judge and therefore brought that perspective of the children.
“The knee-jerk reaction of the judiciary is where children are brought into play they will be entitled.
“The message that goes out to celebrities is that, if you’re going to have a menage a trois, or an open relationship, make sure you have children because you will be able to keep it from the public.”
The written ruling was made in January but only published at the end of March.
Mr Stephens added: “One of the things you do if you take one of these privacy injunctions in London is you paint a target on your back.
“The European idea of privacy is robust but certainly in the United States they don’t really have this concept of privacy because it all falls in the concept of protected speech”
But, on the same show, Sara Mansoori of Matrix Chambers said: “The court in this case found that a false image was not being presented and that this couple had children and the interests of the children needed to be taken into account.”
No comments:
Post a Comment