If a celebrity took out a super injunction how would an editor who didn't know about it...

[sandyRoe]

...know not to use the information if he came across it by some different means?

[jno]

you'd have to suppose any editor worthy of the name would know about it; but it doesn't always happen. Remember when Prince Harry's Afghanistan duties were inadvertently revealed by an Australian women's magazine?

[237SJ]

Newspaper editors know about everything! That is why injunctions are taken out.

[sara3]

plus they would probably have the pants sued off them if they published something under an injunction.

[jno]

they'd be prosecuted for contempt of court rather than being sued, a very serious matter... but sandy's question was how would they know they'd done it?

[sandyRoe]

Take an imaginary case. A footballer from some northern club takes out an injunction forbidding all comment on his supposed interest in young women. An editor is presented with evidence that this footballer is dallying with a couple of nubile 17 year olds. The editor doesn't know of the injunction and publishes. Is he damned?

[jackthehat]

There will be some mechanism by which the newspapers are served with the equivalent of the 'D Notice'.
Knowing the details of the case is not the same thing as publishing them...

[ixion]

An interesting point SandyRoe - leads me to speculate that the Press must be notified of what they can't report.

[scotman]

Very interesting question. Perhaps NewJudge will let us know.