9673 replies to this topic

[Marklar]

If their material were available in England - almost a given with the internet - they would be in contempt of court and liable to arrest.

And of course they could not find anything out other than via a source in England.

presumably they can geoblock those contents.

Edited by Marklar, 04 March 2025 - 10:19.

[absinthedude]

In very high profile cases it is not unusual for a judge to order a media blackout so as not to prejudice the case. Though this rarely happens in employment tribunals as they're not criminal court cases and rarely attract the attention of the media.It is actually pretty unusual for media (social and otherwise) to take much notice of the employment tribunals as they're usually simply last resorts where (former) employees of an organisation are seeking compensation and apology for poor/illegal treatment in the workplace. 

The issue here is that the allegations and rebuttals attracted so much attention, in part because of the profile of Horner and RBR, that it would end up as "trial by media". The employment tribunal, if it gets that far, needs to consider the cases and evidence put forward by RBR and the former employee. Not a rampaging mob or salivating fans and journalists. Indeed probably two mobs, one with the pitchforks out for Horner and another supporting him.

[Sterzo]

Given that:

 

"English media have not reported on the case for some time. This has to do with a so-called Reporting Restriction Order (RRO) from the court, which was issued in the United Kingdom at the request of the Horner camp and has determined that all British media are no longer allowed to report on the developments. This will remain the case until the restrictions are lifted. Various media are opposing the ban, which has been in place since April last year. In sensitive cases involving celebrities, these RROs are often issued in England."

 

...do we not risk compromising Autosport by publishing information on their website, which the UK press is forbidden to cover?

[Claudius]

Can somebody explain why RRO exists? Something to do with defamation? 

[lewislorenzo]

I am sure nothing will come from this

[Marklar]

Can somebody explain why RRO exists? Something to do with defamation?

to not influence jury/judge with biased reporting

[ensign14]

Can somebody explain why RRO exists? Something to do with defamation? 

 

Privacy.  In this case, 99% it's that of the complainant.  It's not uncommon for reporting restrictions over allegations of a sexual nature to protect complainants/witnesses.

[ensign14]

presumably they can geoblock those contents.

 

But how do they GET those contents?  Has to come from someone in England.  Even if it's popping along to a hearing.

[jonpollak]

Didn’t Max Mosley further strengthen the breadth of the RRO in his last privacy case in the courts?

Jp

[Marklar]

But how do they GET those contents?  Has to come from someone in England.  Even if it's popping along to a hearing.

this may well all be true, but then van Haren's report on this wouldn't have been possible now, no?

[ensign14]

Probably before an RRO was in place.  I don't think there were any legal proceedings then.

[pdac]

Just get an MP interested enough to "ask questions" (tell everyone what's going on in question form) in parliament.

[Marklar]

Probably before an RRO was in place.  I don't think there were any legal proceedings then.

van Haren says the RRO is in place since april, though.

I get your point that it may technically not be allowed, but I doubt that a British court can do much about the global press and how they obtained their information. I doubt the judge cares that much tbh, those restrictions are usually placed to avoid jury bias by getting accidentally across reports. and clamping down national mainstream media does the job well enough.

Edited by Marklar, 04 March 2025 - 11:17.

[ensign14]

In this instance though there is no jury.  RRO does not stop someone reporting there is an RRO, that would be a superinjunction and those are moribund now. 

[WouterF1]

Claudius asked: Can somebody explain why RRO exists? Something to do with defamation?

 

to not influence jury/judge with biased reporting

 

Do you know if there is always a jury at the employment tribunal?

 

(Sorry, multiquote didn't work)

Edited by WouterF1, 05 March 2025 - 07:43.

[Stephane]

Likely never

[DW46]

An employment tribunal isn’t like a judge / jury scenario, you present a case as to why you’ve been unfairly treated / dismissed etc and the other side present why they followed the policy and how the policy is compliant with employment law.

Judge could hand the claimant the win if you didn’t follow your own processes, didn’t have fair processes in place or the processes weren’t compliant with employment law.

The papers in the UK love to throw out a headline for a seemingly wacky decision in an employment tribunal that’s usually got more to do with duff or inadequate processes than the catchy headline.

In this case I suspect (looking from the outside in) it’s more to do with did Horner treat the claimant differently or unfairly as a result of them not wanting to have a relationship with him anymore.

Even if Horner lost the case it’s something that’s involve a payout and an apology, commitment to do better, review our policy, implement better training etc etc.

[CoolBreeze]

I am sure nothing will come from this

 

Completely agree.

[loki]

If their material were available in England - almost a given with the internet - they would be in contempt of court and liable to arrest.

 

And of course they could not find anything out other than via a source in England.

Not prosecutable outside the UK.  A non UK outlet without nexus in the UK could do as they please.  They couldn’t be compelled or served nor are non UK residents subject to UK law outside the UK.  Example is the Dutch outlet that just reported it.  Most of the rest of the world has moved on and the parties have clammed up so there’s no info.

[ensign14]

Do you know if there is always a jury at the employment tribunal?

 

(Sorry, multiquote didn't work)

There isn't.  Either one judge on their own, or one judge with two non-legally-trained panel members (one representing employers in general, the other representing employees).

[ensign14]

Not prosecutable outside the UK.  A non UK outlet without nexus in the UK could do as they please.  They couldn’t be compelled or served nor are non UK residents subject to UK law outside the UK.  Example is the Dutch outlet that just reported it.  Most of the rest of the world has moved on and the parties have clammed up so there’s no info.

Yes, but if they ever come to the UK, they are liable to arrest.  (Also there are extradition arrangements with many countries.)

[BRG]

Yes, but if they ever come to the UK, they are liable to arrest.  (Also there are extradition arrangements with many countries.)

Arrest or extradition for contempt of an employment tribunal?  I don't think so although it may be technically possible. 

[ensign14]

Arrest or extradition for contempt of an employment tribunal?  I don't think so although it may be technically possible. 

No, contempt of court - whichever court put the injunction in place.

[DW46]

I’d add that Red Bull Racing are advertising for a head of people ops for like the 5th time since last Feb. Wonder why no one wants to touch that job with a barge pole 😂