After the recent uproar, the master of the rolls’s report on superinjunctions is redundant. The press has played into the hands of those who argue superinjunctions are necessary.
The simplistic arguments put forward by “right-thinking” members of the tabloid press show they have no concept of responsibility. The irony is that those who seek the right to publish information that they argue should be open do so under anonymity, or with the protection of parliamentary privilege.
To understand what has happened, one has to look at the procedure involved. On the premise that an injunction is necessary (and we do not know the evidence put forward), arguments are put before the judge. An interim order is made.