Guardian Gagged from Reporting Parliament (And to hell with the Bill of Rights)
This is a cross post from Nick Cohen
The Guardian says this morning that it has been “has been prevented from reporting parliamentary proceedings on legal grounds which appear to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights.” Guido points to this question on the Commons order paper and wonders if it is source to the trouble
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura.
Surely it can’t be. For what English judge would dare issue an order banning the reporting of a legitimate question by an elected representative?
UPDATE
Index on Censorship reports:
It cannot be overstated how utterly contrary to democracy this development is. Representative democracy depends on the concept that parliamentarians can speak without fear, and the public can listen to and read what they say, whether sitting in the gallery or through print, broadcast and online media. Democracy, perhaps even more so than justice, must not just be practised: it must be seen to be practised.
That a judge should glibly overturn this concept, even temporarily, puts us truly in GUBU territory. This is, to quote the late Conor Cruise O’Brien, grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre and unprecedented.
The Guardian newspaper goes to court today in an effort to overturn this travesty. Anyone who believes in a free press, free expression and democracy must support their efforts.
UPDATE 2
Great news from the Guardian:
The existence of a previously-secret injunction against the media by oiltraders Trafigura can now be revealed.
Within the last hour, Trafigura’s lawyers Carter-Ruck, abandoned an attempt to prevent the Guardian from reporting proceedings in parliament which revealed its existence.
Labour MP Paul Farrelly put down a question yesterday to the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw. It asked about the injunction obtained by “Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton Report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura”.
The Guardian was due to appear at the High Court at 2pm to challenge Carter-Ruck’s behaviour, when the firm dropped its claim that to report parliament would be a contempt of court.
Comments
| 13 October 2009, 9:17 am |
For what English judge would dare issue an order banning the reporting of a legitimate question by an elected representative?
Ummm..Justice Eady?
| 13 October 2009, 9:46 am |
Would this be the injunctions which the Guardian and the Eye have reported they cannot even report they have received?
| 13 October 2009, 9:57 am |
Alec, it’s be a compliment. Morgoth may be very very wrong about some things, but he is very very very very very very right about many more.
As for “cross post from Nick Cohen”. Hmmmm. Surely Guido’s (almost identical) post was first, by a number of hours.
| 13 October 2009, 9:57 am |
There’s a good article here:
It notes: As a former colleague memorably put it after Carter-Ruck’s death in 2003, “He did for freedom of speech what the Boston Strangler did for door-to-door salesmen.”
| 13 October 2009, 9:58 am |
Barbra Streisand called. She wants her effect back (and an extra vowel for her name, if you have one spare: I don’t, obviously).
| 13 October 2009, 10:02 am |
I think the Streisand effect is working overtime on this one. It seems to have made headlines around the world. The Judge involved is not necessarily Eady; he is the normal trial judge for libel, but any High Court Judge can do an injunction and the trick for solicitors is to find one who doesn’t normally do this sort of case and get a quick decision. Still, hats off to Carter-Ruck for finding the one Judge in England who’s never heard of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights.
| 13 October 2009, 10:06 am |
From Guido:
UPDATE : Apparently Carter-Ruck are trying to suppress this report. Not doing a very good job of it are they?
That hurt a lot.
| 13 October 2009, 10:12 am |
This is a coup d’etat.
| 13 October 2009, 10:14 am |
Nah, that would be a Petreus/Powell ticket for 2012 (no doubt, Ven’s dream ticket).
| 13 October 2009, 10:26 am |
I wonder if we are all going to get injunctions now. I also hope Mr Farrelly is given the opportunity to ask his question on the floor of the house. Preferably tomorrow, in PMQs, when the Commons is broadcast on the BBC and Sky.
| 13 October 2009, 10:41 am |
Points of Order, which often include issues relating to Parliamentary Privilege, can be expected today at 3:30 PM (later if there is a statement). It’s highly likely that the injunction will be raised then.
Farrelly’s original question was a written question so it would not be asked on the floor of the House.
| 13 October 2009, 12:03 pm |
Thank you Guido (gulp), thank you Wikileaks, fuck the secret state.
| 13 October 2009, 12:24 pm |
This is another step along the path of the slow and gradual diminishment and overthrow of the idea of the sovereignty of Parliament.
| 13 October 2009, 12:32 pm |
It is only because of the slow erosion of respect for Parliament that a judge would even consider this to be anything but a gross abuse of his powers and a major overreach by the judicial sphere.
People argued that the intrusion of the police into the precincts of Parliament and into the private papers of MPs was a good thing, because MPs shouldn’t be above the law. Etc etc.
Now this. What’s next?
UK democracy was built on the supremacy of Parliament. Take that away and the UK will lose her democracy as well.
| 13 October 2009, 12:56 pm |
If enough people contributed donations would it be possible to take Brown and others to court? Must the Queen do it? Would be easier to use a Robbiespierre? Any legal eagles not part of the conspiracy able to comment?
| 13 October 2009, 1:08 pm |
Mr Eugenides has a nice expression for Carter-Ruck’s PR work for Trafigura, and the subsequent brouhoohaa:
“online clusterfuck”
http://mreugenides.blogspot.com/2009/10/streisand-effect-trafigura.html
| 13 October 2009, 1:09 pm |
Good news if it’s true
(a good rule I’ve learned, above all from frequenting Harry’s Place, is check and double-check and don’t rush to believe anything you read on blogs)
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/10/carter-ruck-folds-over-guardian-gagging.html
| 13 October 2009, 1:10 pm |
We should be glad this has happened. It is such an extreme case that it will finally highlight the scandal of judicial restriction of civil liberties in the name of privacy. The judgement can’t be allowed to stand and the activities of Mr Justice Eadie (I assume it is he in this case) might finally get the scrutiny they deserve.
| 13 October 2009, 1:14 pm |
Rushbriger twitter: Victory! #CarterRuck caves-in. No #Guardian court hearing. Media can now report Paul Farrelly’s PQ about #Trafigura. More soon on Guardian..
How odd however that a couple of days ago the Guardian was the villain!
| 13 October 2009, 1:17 pm |
Can we get summat straight, please?
Tax evasion is illegal and very wrong, as Nursey would say.
Tax avoidance is better called tax deferral or tax minimization. This is the not-at-all shady business in which lawyers and accountants engage to feed their children.
ADDENDUM:
Leaks of this sort justify the existance of the internet! Right?
| 13 October 2009, 1:21 pm |
Carter-Ruck’s withdrawal is only good news if some way is found to firmly clarify that the original injunction was wrong in law and a scandalous misuse of judicial authority.
Otherwise it’s just drip, drip, drip, drip…
| 13 October 2009, 1:22 pm |
Don’t worry, Carter, another Daily Hate will be on it’s way soon. And with a name like that, you’d best watch out, you’d be on the list too…
| 13 October 2009, 1:22 pm |
Carter fucked – according to Dale
| 13 October 2009, 2:06 pm |
Yes, they’ve caved in. A disaster for Carter-Ruck, who through their heavy-handed tactics, have succeeded in publicising the thing their clients wanted suppressed. And an opportunity to roll back the tide of judge-made law, starting with a full Parliamentary debate on the issue of privacy and the suppression of free speech. There is a report on Newsnight tonight which should be well worth watching.
| 13 October 2009, 2:24 pm |
Not sure it was Eady. A barrister friend has looked at the duty rosters and come up with a different name. I presume it’ll come out in due course.
| 13 October 2009, 2:42 pm |
Well it was Twitter wot did it – not Harrys place. Time to move on from blogging to micro-blogging. Or both.
As for the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. As much as some people claim that the English BIll of Rights is a constitutional law, in effect it has no more power than any other legislation. Case in point the right to wear teeshirts ( bear arms).
That was denied to Catholics ( presumably in breach of later discrimination laws, right now) and is , in any case, not really enforced as I dont see any constitutional challenges to the marked increase in Gun control laws since 1689.
| 13 October 2009, 4:33 pm |
It would appear that an owned company of Trafigura, Vest Tank in Norway, was involved in an explosion/leak of the same gunk at a Norwegian fjord in 2007.
| 13 October 2009, 11:02 pm |
We have a situation in which freedom of speech, and of information, is being defended by bloggers, twitterers, and some of the media. But our parliamentarians seem to be happy to coast along at best, and at worst they are keen to make best use of censorship when their own misconduct finds its way into print.
| 13 October 2009, 11:29 pm |
Carter-Ruck are not dissimilar to Schillings
In fact, at least three lawyers at Carter-Ruck have come from Schillings, Hanna Basha, Felicity Robinson and Michelle Riondel.
Schillings have attempted to effect a gag order on various websites on the internet to prevent the public from knowing that that there is a clear (electronic) connection between Ark Academies and the Dutroux scandal (about the sexual abuse, torture and murder of children scandal in Belgium in the late 1990’s).
Ark Academies sponsor schools in the UK.
First Schillings letter:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Schillings_legal_demands_to_EUTruth.Org_over_EIM_Chair_Arpad_Busson
Censored video:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/EIMConsult_censored_video
Refutation:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Talk:EIMConsult_censored_video
Second Schillings letter:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Schillings_legal_threat_re_Arpad_Busson%2C_EIM_Group_and_ARK_Schools_to_911forum.org.uk_hoster%2C_16_Dec_2008
Ark’s eugenics programme now in place in UK schools:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBxQpft5F_k
| 13 October 2009, 11:36 pm |
| 13 October 2009, 11:37 pm |
The Guardian and the BBC stand up as supporters of the powerless again. I don’t think anyone who cares about the truth can discount the power of the mainstream media. I, for one, will be proud to buy a copy of the Guardian tomorrow
| 14 October 2009, 12:06 am |
The Judge is identified in today’s Guardian as Mr Justice Maddison.
| 14 October 2009, 9:53 am |
Featured in the Newsnight item was Simon Singh’s appeal, due to go to court today, against the judge’s draconian ruling in the Chiropractor’s libel action against him. Anyone got access to the roll for today to see what time it is set down for? I would love to pop in and listen if it is at a good time for me.
| 14 October 2009, 10:37 am |
Hi,
Most postsecondary vocational schools and colleges offer Court Reporting training programs Online. All court reporters require the same basic academic training, but the amount of training you will require will depend on the type of reporting method you choose.
Guido points to this question on the Commons order paper and wonders if it is source to the trouble
Ha ha, good for Guido (that didn’t hurt too much).