There are different legal views on the injunction against Brand's alleged victim, including whether she has an implied right to speak to the police about any allegations, regardless of any injunction. This is worth reading for an alternative perspective. linkedin.com/feed/update/urn…
I've had the chance to read Dan Neidle's post on Tax Policy Associates, as well as his tweets and...

I've had the chance to read Dan Neidle's post on Tax Policy Associates, as well as his tweets and...

I've had the chance to read Dan Neidle's post on Tax Policy Associates, as well as his tweets and the tweets from Jemima Goldsmith's brother Ben this morning (https://lnkd.in/eksfXHVi) and, based on...

linkedin.com
10
21
2
101
38,585
The final permanent injunction only permitted her to speak with legal advisers or specific named doctors. The Court of Appeal upheld the injunction and refused to vary it to permit her to speak with the police. This means she risks prison if she does so.
1
20
4,061
See this part of Beth's post: "The Court of Appeal also didn't accept that that it did prohibit her from speaking to the police - Lady Justice Faulk only noted what appeared on the face of the order - i.e. pointing to the fact that there would be other information which would determine how it was to be interpreted."
2
1
1
10
5,322
But that’s incorrect. The CoA refused to vary or revoke the order & without that it stands. The interim 2014 order carved out that she could go to Thames Valley Police but the 2015 final injunction removed this & allowed legal assistance & named Drs as the only two carve-outs.
1
6
1,344
On what basis are you disputing Beth’s opinion that no legal carve out is needed to speak to the police?
3
4
1,335
The CoA ruled it was not for them to vary or revoke - not re a full legal interpretation of the Injunction. ‘To any person’ is a catch-all in English law incl authorities, requiring exemptions, the Interim order included the police & the final Injunction removed the police.
2
5
1,339
Beth is an experienced & highly regarded media/information lawyer. If she thinks no carve out is needed for the police because of witness immunity, I’m working on the basis at least of disagreement amongst lawyers on this. I’d want to know what other specialists think.
5
4
2,838
Sonia, I don't think this can be right. Please read JK.'s statement. The parties appear to think the injunction stops her going to the police.
Image from Dan Neidle (@DanNeidle)

Nov 9, 2026 · 7:28 PM UTC

3
18
2,791
RelevantRecentLikes
That’s not in doubt- but that’s different to her being actually prohibited from speaking to the police. If she isn’t of course it would have been better if it that was explicit - I’m not saying it wouldn’t have been, or that I personally have the legal expertise to pronounce on it, just that there appears to be some debate on the legal point…
3
4
2,453
there certainly is debate, and it's not clear, but you'd be brave or even crazy to risk contempt by taking Ms Berki to the police. The interim injunction, final injunction and JK's comments are all consistent with the parties believing an injunction could stop someone going to the police.
2
1
15
2,206
View more replies
But why do you assume they are right? I read that as @jemima_khan merely responding to public allegations that this woman was prevented from speaking to police by her injunction, whether true or not.
46
And both Ms Berki and Ms Khan had legal representation and weren’t writing a quick public comment on LinkedIn.
1
1
216