A superinjunction, explains my learned friend Mr Charlie Brooker, can be defined as follows:
"A super-injunction is an injunction that prevents you from telling anyone that an injunction exists."
I would like to explain why it may be that such superinjunctions may be appropriate for the court to grant in certain circumstances.
In doing so, I would like to set out two situations [A] and [Z] which may serve as parameters of this discussion.
An international multimillion corporation seeking a superinjunction to prevent publication of the information that there is an injunction preventing publication of a professionally-prepared report in respect of a major incident which involved the health and safety of large numbers of people.
A non-public figure, perhaps involuntarily caught up in a news story (such as Colin Stagg, Robert Murat, a former boyfriend of Stepehen Gateley, or a relative of a crime victim) seeking a superinjunction to prevent publication of the information, which has no public interest, that a prior injunction exists which prevents disclosure of information about their sexual preferences or practices.
Like any liberal person, I would not think Situation A - the Trafigua scenario - warrants a superinjunction. Every element of that situation tells against a court exercising its discretion to grant such a super injunction.
But what about Situation Z?
Well, in my view, purely private information, where there there is no public figure involved or public interest in the information, should have the protection of a superinjunction.
It would defeat the very privacy rights of that individual for a newspaper - and lets imagine this information now in the hands of Jan Moir rather than Alan Rusbridger - to publish that there was an injunction about someones sex life, even if the exact details of that sex life are not actually published.
Superinjunctions are quite novel, brought about mainly by the Human Rights Act 1998 and giving of effect in English law of Article 8 of the ECHR, which protects privacy.
In my view, measures should be adopted by the court, or be legislated for by Parliament, which makes it that such superinjunctions are available in situations towards Situation Z, and not Situation A.
For, in Situation Z, thousands of well-intended online complaints to the PCC are simply too late; the dignity and privacy of the non-public (and human, not corporate) figure on a matter of no public interest have already been destroyed by the likes of poisonous Jan Moir.
Just imagine Jan Moir with the information that there exists an injunction about YOUR sex life...