News Group tried to get CTB’s anonymity injunction listed last night, after John Hemming MP named the person in Parliament.
While Tugendhat J’s ruling unfortunately kinda confirms that (via jigsaw identification) we all know who CTB is now, the third paragraph in the ruling — CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd  EWCH 1334 — bears repeating. The injunctions are not just for the benefit of the claimant.
It is obvious that if the purpose of this injunction were to preserve a secret, it would have failed in its purpose. But in so far as its purpose is to prevent intrusion or harassment, it has not failed. The fact that tens of thousands of people have named the claimant on the internet confirms that the claimant and his family need protection from intrusion into their private and family life. The fact that a question has been asked in Parliament seems to me to increase, and not to diminish the strength of his case that he and his family need that protection. The order has not protected the claimant and his family from taunting on the internet. It is still effective to protect them from taunting and other intrusion and harassment in the print media.
It could be simpler if newspaper apologies had to take up the same number of square inches of the paper as the original offending article(s). The cost of such an apology might be the only thing that may make them focus on stories of public interest, rather than on feeding on the profit gained by the general public’s prurience. It has a certain poetic justice that I like, too.