Are super injunctions sexist?

Yesterday's proceedings at the High Court showed a darker side to privacy injunctions as model Imogen Thomas was accused of blackmailing a high-profile football player to guarantee her silence over an alleged affair

Injunctions have been at the height of headlines recently as a number of high profile celebs, footballers and TV presenters have won gagging orders to keep their private lives out of the press.

Welsh model Imogen Thomas is currently engaged in a legal fight to name the married footballer with whom she had an affair, protesting that her reputation has been trashed while his has been protected.

Yesterday the case took a dramatic turn when the married footballer accused the 28 year-old model of allegedly blackmailing the man with demands for of up to £100,000 for her silence.

The former Big Brother contestant is at the centre of a storm about the controversial use of gagging orders to suppress publication of celebrity sexual indiscretions, since several celebrities were accused of taking out injunctions on Twitter.

Miss Thomas believes she has been thrown to the lions while the multimillionaire Premier League footballer has the funds to pay lawyers to keep his name out of the scandal. Is it fair to only protect those who can afford to pay for their privacy?

‘I have read the judgement and I am stunned by how I have been portrayed,’ the model said outside the courtroom. ‘Yet again my name and my reputation are being trashed while the man I had a relationship with is able to hide.’

‘What’s more, I can’t even defend myself because I have been gagged. Where’s the fairness in that?’ she argued. ‘If this is the way privacy injunctions are supposed to work then there’s something seriously wrong with the law.’

Do you think the law is sexist towards women who are sold short by rich men? Does the protection from gagging orders promote infidelity? Are injunctions ever justified? Let us know your thoughts by posting a comment below.


Reading now