Sir Philip Green loses Strasbourg case over naming in Parliament
What
Sir Philip Green loses Strasbourg case over naming in Parliament Sir Philip Green loses Strasbourg case over naming in Parliament The former Arcadia Group chairman took a case to Strasbourg over the use of parliamentary privilege to make information subject to injunctions public.
Key points
- Sir Philip Green loses Strasbourg case over naming in Parliament The former Arcadia Group chairman took a case to Strasbourg over the use of parliamentary privilege to make information subject to injunctions public.
- However, he was named in Parliament as the businessman behind the injunction against the newspaper by Labour peer Lord Hain in October 2018, using parliamentary privilege.
- In a complaint lodged in April 2019, Sir Philip's lawyers told justices in Strasbourg that Lord Hain's statement made his breach of confidence claim against the Telegraph futile, violating his right to a fair trial, and that the statement also breached his right to privacy.
- Sir Philip previously obtained a court injunction preventing the Telegraph from publishing allegations of misconduct made against him by five ex-employees who had agreed to keep the details of their complaints confidential under non-disclosure agreements.
- Sir Philip categorically and wholly denied being guilty of any unlawful sexual or racist behaviour, in a statement issued hours after the peer's intervention in the House of Lords.
Who
Lado Chanturia; Registrar Simeon Petrovski; Arcadia Group
When
ge to make information subject to injunctions publ
Where
Strasbourg; Monaco
Why
Sir Philip "categorically and wholly" denied being guilty of any "unlawful sexual or racist behaviour", in a statement issued hours after the peer's intervention in the House of Lords.
How
Sir Philip previously obtained a court injunction preventing the Telegraph from publishing allegations of misconduct made against him by five ex-employees who had agreed to keep the details of their complaints confidential under non-disclosure agreements.
Impact
A majority of the judges also found that his complaints brought under Article 6, the right to a fair hearing, and Article 13, the right to an effective remedy, were "inadmissible".
Metrics
Metrics Dictionary
A percentage indicating the degree of political bias detected in the article content.
0-20%: Minimal to no detectable bias
21-40%: Slight bias present but generally balanced
41-60%: Noticeable bias but attempts balance
61-80%: Strong bias present
81-100%: Extreme bias detected
A score from -1 to 1 measuring the emotional tone of the content.
-1.0 to -0.6: Strongly negative emotional content
-0.6 to -0.2: Moderately negative tone
-0.2 to 0.2: Balanced or neutral emotional tone
0.2 to 0.6: Moderately positive tone
0.6 to 1.0: Strongly positive emotional content
Indicates how certain the analysis is about its bias assessment.
0-33%: Limited confidence in assessment
34-66%: Reasonable confidence in assessment
67-100%: High confidence in assessment
Describes the political orientation of the content based on language and perspective.
Left
Generally favors progressive policies and significant government intervention
Center-Left
Moderately progressive with balanced government involvement
Neutral
Balanced perspective without clear political leaning
Center-Right
Moderately conservative with limited government involvement
Right
Generally favors conservative policies and minimal government intervention
0
Please Login to comment