Strasbourg Court Rules Against Sir Philip Green in Parliament Naming Case

Sir Philip Green’s human rights were not breached when he was named in Parliament as the holder of an injunction against The Telegraph newspaper, as ruled by the European Court of Human Rights.

Green took his case to Strasbourg, challenging the use of parliamentary privilege to make information subject to injunctions public.

Previously, Green had obtained a court injunction against The Telegraph from publishing allegations of misconduct made against him by five former employees who had agreed to keep their complaints confidential under non-disclosure agreements.

Despite this, he was identified in Parliament as the businessman behind the injunction against the newspaper by Labour peer Lord Hain in October 2018, using parliamentary privilege.

In response, Green adamantly denied any illegal sexual or racist behavior in a statement issued shortly after Lord Hain’s remarks in the House of Lords.

Parliamentary privilege allows MPs and peers complete freedom of speech without the fear of libel action or other repercussions in the House of Commons or House of Lords.

In a complaint filed in April 2019, Green’s legal team argued in Strasbourg that Lord Hain’s statement rendered his breach of confidence claim against The Telegraph futile, violating his right to a fair trial and infringing on his right to privacy.

The businessman’s lawyers challenged the lack of restrictions on the use of parliamentary privilege to disclose information covered by an injunction.

On Tuesday, a panel of eight judges ruled against Green, stating that his right to privacy under Article 8 of the convention had not been infringed.

Additionally, the majority of judges found his complaints under Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) to be “inadmissible.”

President Lado Chanturia and Deputy Registrar Simeon Petrovski from the Fourth Section stated, “Given that national authorities, especially parliaments, are better positioned than international courts to assess the necessity of limiting a member’s conduct … the court would require strong reasons to substitute its judgment for that of Parliament.”

Furthermore, they noted, “Since the UK Parliament is aware of the issue of parliamentary privilege being used to circumvent injunctions and has taken steps to address the need for additional controls, the court believes that it may be up to the respondent state, particularly Parliament, to decide whether and to what extent ex-ante and ex-post controls are necessary to prevent its members from disclosing information covered by privacy injunctions.”

Following the decision, Lord Hain expressed satisfaction with the defense of parliamentary privilege in Strasbourg and his right to have identified Sir Philip.

He accused Green of using legal maneuvers and suggested he should behave more respectfully.

Lord Hain’s revelation came after The Telegraph’s front-page story about being unable to name a “mystery businessman” due to legal restrictions, prompting the headline “The British #MeToo scandal which cannot be revealed.”

The newspaper later detailed allegations that Green had groped a female executive and paid her over £1 million for silence, as well as referring to a black employee in a derogatory manner related to his appearance.

Green had previously criticized The Telegraph for what he perceived as a personal vendetta against him and his employees.