Who is PJS? Football stars named as love cheats in US
After threesome injunction fiasco, top player and manager identified online despite gagging orders
Who is PJS? Battle ramps up as Helen Wood injunction star is named
04 May
The Sun has stepped up its battle against celebrity injunctions, as judges continue to deliberate over whether English and Welsh media should be allowed to name a celebrity who had an extra-marital threesome.
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
Last month, the Court of Appeal ruled the gagging order should be lifted, but the married star, known as PJS, has appealed to the Supreme Court, where judges said they would give their decision "at a later date".
The dispute has been rumbling on since January, when the Sun on Sunday attempted to publish a story about the man's involvement in a "three-way" encounter with two other people, known as AB and CD.
Fighting the injunction, the tabloid has pointed out that the celebrity and his spouse have been named in media across the world and on the internet over the past month. However, newspapers in England and Wales are still not allowed to reveal their identities.
Today, The Sun's front page revealed that another married star who has taken out an injunction in England is to be unmasked the US.
Making sense of the week's political news, delivered every Wednesday
The actor, who is alleged to have had sex with former sex worker turned reality TV star Helen Wood, obtained the legal ruling five years ago.
The Daily Mail has also attacked the injunction, describing it as "draconian".
The man has "a reputation as a family man and is a renowned star", it argues. "People around the world will know all about the sordid claims, but UK publications still cannot publish the details".
Media lawyer Mark Stephens said: "It is positively potty. Yet again the Americans have gazumped our own press with news which we cannot print."
Who is PJS? Identification 'is not something a court can prevent'
25 April
A lawyer for the mystery celebrity trying to keep his extra-marital threesome under wraps has warned of a "storm of harassment" if his client is allowed to be named.
An injunction is currently in place preventing anyone in England and Wales from publishing the married star's name.
On Monday 18 April, the Court of Appeal decided that the gagging order should be lifted but the man, known only as PJS, has since taken an appeal to the Supreme Court.
On Thursday, in the London court, his lawyer Desmond Browne warned that there would be a "storm of harassment" if the injunction was discharged. He blamed newspapers for stoking up more interest in the story over the past fortnight, meaning that the need to protect his client from intrusion remained as great, if not greater, than when the original injunction was put in place.
PJS is married to another celebrity, known only as YMA. His lawyer argued that the couple, not the press, had the right to decide when their children should learn about the affair.
"It's not simply publications in the papers and online, it's also the way in which the media go about preparing and researching a story," said Browne, raising concerns about paparazzi hounding the couple if their names were made public.
Gavin Millar, the lawyer for the Sun on Sunday, which has been seeking to publish the story since January, said their names had already spread across England via social media and in pubs, cafes and over garden fences.
"This is not something a court can prevent," he said.
Millar argued that the position had therefore changed from January, when no information about the matter was available to the public.
"The process continues over a period. One type of transmission feeds the other," he said. "You pick up information on the internet, you may search for more on the web, you may discuss it on social media."
He added: "And people do still talk. It's easy to forget they do. They communicate in pubs and in cafes and over the garden fence.
"Once a story has currency on the internet, it does become the subject of discussion between people in the jurisdiction."
Lawyers have previously presented evidence showing a massive increase in the number of Google searches relating to PJS and YMA by their true names, as well as for a US magazine that revealed their identities.
Browne argued the media had "whipped up" the debate and encouraged readers to search online. He said a series of articles had "ridiculed" the injunction, putting pressure on the court to set the order aside.
The Supreme Court announced it would "reserve judgment and give its decision at a later date". The injunction remains in force until a decision is announced.
A test of privacy laws
Commentators say the case is testing freedom of the press and privacy laws in the digital age.
Privacy injunctions are used when a person wants to prevent the publication or dissemination of private information and apply to the High Court for an order to stop this.
In the past, so-called super-injunctions have prevented the media from even reporting that an injunction has been put in place. Could these come back into fashion? "Unlikely," says Jane Martinson at The Guardian. "Like double denim and fruit prints, super-injunctions were over by 2011 after a report led by senior judges recommended that the media could contest orders before they happen."
The PJS case involves an anonymised privacy injunction, rather than a super-injunction, meaning that the press can discuss it openly as long as they don't identify the claimant. According to the tables published in the most recent Civil Justice Statistics Quarterly Bulletin, there were just three applications for privacy injunctions in July to December 2015.
At the "heart" of the PJS case, says Martinson, is whether a UK court can really enforce a ban on publication when websites outside its jurisdiction can be read by people in the UK.
Who is PJS? UK's most senior judge due to hear case
21 April
The UK's most senior judge is due to decide whether an injunction preventing the media from naming a married celebrity who took part in an extra-marital threesome should be overturned once and for all.
Lord Neuberger, president of the Supreme Court, is scheduled to head a panel of five Supreme Court justices at the hearing in London today.
The celebrity, known only as PJS, has taken his case to the UK's highest court after losing the latest round of his legal battle to keep the sexual encounter secret.
Earlier this week, three Court of Appeal judges ruled that the Sun on Sunday and other newspapers in England and Wales should be allowed to name him, as his identity was widely known across the world and on the internet.
The Supreme Court will now decide whether to uphold that ruling.
PJS is married to another famous entertainer, known as YMA, and the couple have young children.
However, in the Court of Appeal, Lord Jackson warned that using their children in the application "cannot be a trump card".
"In my view, whether or not the court grants an injunction, it is inevitable that the two children in due course learn about these matters," he said.
A final decision to lift the gagging order could mark the "death knell for celebrity private injunctions in the internet age", says The Times.
Instead, experts have said there might be a rise in actions for privacy breaches once material has been published.
Amber Melville-Brown, media law partner at Withers law firm in London, told the newspaper: "If this decision stands, the only way to dis-incentivise the media from rooting through people's private lives with impunity is to hit them hard where it hurts: in their pockets. Those whose privacy continues to be invaded must take a stand against the press."
Who is PJS? Gagging order extended by another 24 hours
20 April
The injunction banning media in England and Wales from naming the celebrity involved in an extra-marital threesome has been extended until Thursday.
Earlier this week, the Court of Appeal decided that the injunction should be lifted, but the married star is due to appeal against that ruling in the Supreme Court tomorrow.
"The interim injunction granted by the Court of Appeal will remain in place until the conclusion of the Supreme Court hearing, and at the end of the hearing the Supreme Court will decide whether to continue that injunction," the court said in a statement.
The legal dispute has been rumbling on since January, when the Sun on Sunday attempted to publish a story about the man's involvement in a "three-way" encounter with two other people known as AB and CD.
The man, known only as PJS, is married to another celebrity, known as YMA, and has young children.
The couple have been named in media across the world and on the internet, but newspapers in England and Wales are not allowed to reveal their identities.
"Much of the harm which the injunction was intended to prevent has already occurred," said Lord Justice Jackson, who led the three-judge panel at the Court of Appeal. "Knowledge of the relevant matters is now so widespread that confidentiality has probably been lost."
The case is being seen as a test of whether the use of privacy injunctions, branded "draconian" by critics, can "ever be effective in the internet era", says The Guardian.
Meanwhile, PJS is said to be facing a bill of up to £1m if found liable to pay the legal costs of both sides, dating back to January.
Who is PJS? Court rules that injunction should be lifted
19 April
The Court of Appeal has lifted the injunction preventing media in England and Wales from naming the mystery celebrity who took part in an extra-marital threesome.
However, the married star still cannot be named pending a possible appeal.
The celebrity, who is known by the initials PJS, has until 10am today to submit an appeal to the Supreme Court. The gagging order would then only be lifted if the case was thrown out. If the court decides to hear the case, the injunction will be extended.
The Court of Appeal stressed there must be no publication of the celebrity's name until at least 1pm on Wednesday.
PJS, who has children with another celebrity, known only as YMA, took legal action earlier this year after the Sun on Sunday tried to publish allegations that he had taken part in a threesome with another couple.He has since been named in several other countries, including China, Scotland, the US and Canada.
Seeking to publish the story in full, the Sun On Sunday yesterday argued that the information had been published abroad and could be found online.
"Much of the harm which the injunction was intended to prevent has already occurred," agreed Lord Justice Jackson. "The court should not make orders which are ineffective."
If the judgment stands, it would "effectively mark the end of the celebrity privacy injunction", says BBC legal correspondent Clive Coleman.
Who is PJS? Court due to rule on threesome injunction
18 April
Judges at the Court of Appeal are today due to rule on whether the mystery celebrity who had an extra-marital threesome should be named.
Lord Justice Jackson, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Simon are expected to decide whether or not to lift the injunction preventing the media in England and Wales from identifying the married star.
A challenge against the injunction was due to be heard in secret on Friday, but judges said the debate should be heard by the public.
"We have come to the conclusion that the hearing should be heard in open court because there are issues to be debated which are in the public interest," Lord Justice Jackson said.
The man in question, who can only be referred to as PJS, is married to another celebrity, identified as YMA. The couple, who have young children, sought an injunction to stop the Sun on Sunday from publishing the story.
Lawyers for the tabloid argue that the man has been named so widely that the injunction is effectively pointless.
The Court of Appeal initially agreed that PJS and YMA's right to privacy outweighed the tabloid's right to freedom of expression. However, their names have been revealed in the US, Canada, Sweden, Scotland and on various sites across the internet. Google has refused to censor search results that identify the celebrity.
A vox-pop of 40 people by the Daily Mail in central London found that 20 per cent knew the man's name – while "virtually everyone" in the audience of Have I Got News for You raised their hand when asked if they knew the real name of PJS.
The Sun estimates that "two billion people worldwide" have access to the identities on the internet and in various publications.
The newspaper also reports that Lord Justice Jackson has already acknowledged in court: "The point is that anyone who is interested can find out. Those who are interested already know.
"Anyone who wants to find out the information would have no difficulty accessing the information."
Who is PJS? Celebrity could be named as early as Friday
15 April
A privacy injunction preventing the press from revealing the identity of a mystery celebrity who had an extra-marital threesome will be challenged in the Court of Appeal tomorrow.
The Sun on Sunday, which was planning to publish the original story, will present its application to have the injunction overturned in London.
The married star can only be referred to as PJS in England and Wales after the court issued a ban on publishing his name.
PJS, who is in a relationship with another celebrity, identified as YMA, argued that his right to privacy outweighed the Sun on Sunday's right to freedom of expression. The court agreed there was not enough justification to publish the story as the couple were in an "open relationship".
This has not, however, stopped publications in the US, Canada, Sweden and Scotland from revealing the couple's names. Under the strict terms of the injunction, these publications cannot be identified.
A political blogger has also published the names of the couple, arguing that the injunction is only "making lawyers richer". He has been threatened with a possible fine and imprisonment under the Contempt of Court Act, but claims he was entitled to reveal the names because the story was published in the Republic of Ireland and uploaded on US servers.
"I told them to take it where the sun doesn't shine," he told The Guardian. "There's no bricks and mortar in the UK, there's no printing press in the UK, there's no server in the UK."
According to the Daily Telegraph, one MP had planned to use parliamentary privilege, which protects politicians from libel claims, to identify the couple in the House of Commons.
This legal immunity was used five years ago by John Hemming, then a Liberal Democrat MP, to identify Ryan Giggs as the footballer who had won an injunction to stop reporting of an alleged affair. Giggs's identity was also revealed by a newspaper in Scotland.
"It's absurd trying to hold back the flow of information in the digital age by using a court order that can only go as far as Hadrian's Wall. It undermines public debate in England and Wales," said Hemming, who lost his Birmingham Yardley seat last year.
"Although the matter at the centre of this injunction is a trivial one, the issues it creates are vital ones which go to the heart of free speech."
Controversially, Commons speaker John Bercow has warned MPs they "should not breach the terms of any injunction/super injunction".
The whole situation is an "absolute farce", said Conservative politician Philip Davies.
"I have never encountered anything quite so ridiculous as this in my life," he told the Telegraph.
"Judges who keep making these rulings are completely out of touch with what is right. They need to get real with the modern world."
The couple involved in the threesome have also expressed frustration about the situation. One of them told The Sun: "This is getting more and more crazy. When does this injunction become pointless?... It's humiliating that people in America, where the celeb was first named, have more freedom than us but now our neighbours in Scotland and Ireland have more rights, which is stupid."
A spokesperson for the Attorney General's office told The Guardian: "Anyone who breaches an injunction through comments posted online or otherwise may have contempt of court proceedings brought against them.
"Although the Attorney General will consider any representations that are made to him, the onus for bringing proceedings for contempt will usually lie with the party who sought the injunction in the first place."
Injunction law labelled a 'farce' as mystery PJS is named in US
08 April
Britain's legal system has been branded a "farce" after a celebrity who took out a UK court injunction to keep an extra-marital threesome under wraps was named in the US media.
The British press has been banned from identifying the individual – known only as PJS – after he secured an injunction at the Court of Appeal. It was revealed that he works in the entertainment industry and is married to "a well-known individual in the same business", referred to as YMA.
A High Court judge initially turned down the application because the infidelity undermined PJS's public portrayal of a committed marriage, but the Court of Appeal said the couple had an open relationship and the spouse accepted the celebrity had sexual encounters from time to time.
In the public ruling last month, Lord Justice Rupert Jackson said the individual's right to "private and family life" outweighed the Sun on Sunday's right under laws on freedom of expression to publish an article about PJS's adultery, which the judge said would be "devastating for the claimant", who has young children.
Philip Davies, the MP for Shipley, in West Yorkshire, told the Daily Mail the situation was a "farce" and was making an "ass out of the law", while Bob Satchwell, the executive director at the Society of Editors, said injunctions were outdated and ludicrous.
"On one level, it means people who buy these injunctions are wasting their money," he said. "But it is quite ridiculous that people elsewhere can know about the story but people in Britain are not allowed to. It makes a mockery of the system."
Mark Borkowski, a PR and branding consultant, said the truth would ultimately come out. "We are in the digital, global age where there are no boundaries," he said.
Dominic Grieve, the UK's attorney general until 2014, has suggested the ruling could be overturned after the identities were published in the US.
"If an injunction has lost all meaning that is usually grounds for going back to the courts and saying there is no point having it anymore," he told the Daily Telegraph.
"I have very little doubt that if a time comes when the story has been disseminated everywhere, it will be lifted. My experience is that the courts are fairly realistic about this."
The couple who took part in the threesome with PJS are said to be "furious" they have been prevented from revealing the truth.
One of them told The Sun they had been "threatened with jail" and "bullied and harassed" by the millionaire star.
"The whole thing is absolutely ridiculous," he said. "We have been threatened with perjury, contempt of court and prison – all for telling the truth about this threesome.
"We have had endless calls and emails from the star's lawyers and even had a threatening letter hand-delivered through our door."
He pointed out that the famous couple do not deny what happened, but have used the courts to cover it up.
"We are normal human beings and have had problems and threats non-stop," he said. "What about our human rights and freedom of expression?
"It is not just about this story any more – it's a wider issue and people like them should not be able to use the courts to stop this stuff just because they have got pots of money."