Giggs sets courts at war with Parliament

The move led to Giggs’s name being revealed by newspapers and broadcasters across the UK, after a weekend when tens of thousands had named him on the Twitter micro-blogging site and on numerous websites.

But last night the High Court in London insisted that a gagging order barring his identification as the footballer alleged to have had an affair with Big Brother star Imogen Thomas remained in force.

Mr Justice Tugendhat, sitting in London, rejected an application to lift the order. Earlier, Mr Justice Eady had also refused to lift the ban.

The farce came as the Tory-LibDem Coalition admitted that the current system of injunctions was not working.

Prime Minister David Cameron described the situation as “unsustainable” and within hours the Government announced plans for an urgent review with the results to be published in the autumn.

At the same time, thousands of Twitter users were warned they could still face the “rude shock” of prosecution for contempt of court, despite Giggs’s identification in Parliament.

After what now appears to be a disastrous decision last week to sue the micro-blogging site, the Manchester United footballer is at the centre of a public row not only about privacy and freedom of speech, but between Parliament and the courts.

Yesterday was the third time in as many months that politicians have used parliamentary privilege to bypass court orders and reveal information about super-injunctions.

Last week a gagging order obtained by former RBS boss Sir Fred Goodwin was partially lifted after his alleged affair with a senior colleague was mentioned in the House of Lords.

Mr Hemming himself has warned that celebrities who have such injunctions face “death by a thousand cuts”.

A number of other celebrities with super-injunctions are thought to be concerned he could name them in the House of Commons next.

Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General, appeared to side with the courts, telling MPs that it was their duty as parliamentarians “to uphold the rule of law”.

He also warned his colleagues that they should change the law, not use Parliament to break court orders simply because they disagree with them.

The row comes just a week after the judiciary in England were accused of attempting to “gag” Parliament.

In a report on super-injunctions, senior judges warned the law surrounding parliamentary privilege was “very unclear”.

Furious MPs interpreted the warning as a threat to the principle of free speech in Parliament, which has been in force for centuries.

Labour accused ministers of being in a muddle over the issue as even Tory MPs warned that the law was in danger of being shown to be an “ass”.

John Bercow, the Speaker of the House of Commons, was clear that Giggs’s name could now be revealed by media outlets reporting proceedings in Westminster yesterday. But last night Mr Justice Tugendhat kept the bar on naming the star.

It was the second time that the case had come before the High Court in a matter of hours. An earlier attempt to lift the order, by The Sun newspaper, was thrown out by Mr Justice Eady, despite the information being widely available on the internet.

Explaining his judgement, he said that to do otherwise would expose the footballer to a “cruel and destructive media frenzy”.

“Should the court buckle every time one of its orders meets widespread disobedience or defiance?” he added. “In a democratic society, if a law is deemed to be unenforceable or unpopular, it is for the legislature to make such changes as it decides are appropriate.”

The Giggs case has also sparked a separate row over the primacy of Scots law after a suggestion that Mr Grieve might start proceedings against the Sunday Herald -- sister title of The Herald-- despite the fact that the injunction did not apply in Scotland.

First Minister Alex Salmond was among the politicians across the political spectrum on Scotland who said that the independence of Scots law should remain paramount.

“I would find it extraordinary, almost unbelievable, if the Attorney General were to be so foolish as to tread where angels fear to tread,” he added.

The paper said it had made the decision to show how ludicrous it was that newspapers were prevented from publishing information that was available at a click on the internet.

Mr Hemming said he had decided to name Giggs when he heard the player was going after Twitter and “ordinary people”, trying to prosecute them for “gossiping” about relatively trivial information about him.

“Opinion polls show that roughly two-thirds of the country knew who he was,” he added.

A committee of MPs and peers will now look at privacy law and recommend any changes needed.