Guardian prevented from reporting Parliamentary Question
- Thread starter Nemo
- Start date
Given that free speech in Parliament is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, I really hope they try, just so some judge can tell them to fuck right off.
They'll lose.
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
Trafigura have given up, the entire set of injunctions (including the Minton report) have been lifted:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/16/carter-ruck-abandon-minton-injunction
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/16/carter-ruck-abandon-minton-injunction
claphamboy
The wheels on the bus go round and round....
Excellent result!
I said back in post 4 on this thread....
.... but I didn't expect it all to come out so soon!
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
Game, Set and Match to Mr Rusbridger. Perhaps he was always going to win but it's nuts it had to come to this.
Prince Rhyus
Spokesman of King Antonio
Unfortunately this thing is still running - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/15/carter-ruck-trafigura-parliament-injunction
No it isn't.Unfortunately this thing is still running - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/15/carter-ruck-trafigura-parliament-injunction
Open Sauce
Active Member
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
When it comes to cover-ups, the former.
Carter-Ruck have managed to fail massively with regards to this issue, bringing what is (or rather, what should be) an absolute scandal to this nations attention (which even then is nowhere near what it deserves) when one wonders whether such attention would have been seen had they not injuncted Minton, the the Grauniad, then Parliament (after all, the only people who died were some nameless West Africans, not someone important like someone out of Boyzone).
If Carter-Fuck can't keep things like this out of the public eye, who's going to retain them in future?
gosub
~#
They are a law firm, the parliamentary questions aren't even showing up on Hansard....PR is someone else's responsibility. As to who will hire them in the future, depressingly, in spirit of redaction I did wonder if some MP's had wish they had known about super injunctions before the summer. As it is these legal mechanisms have had a lot publicity which can only lead to an increase in their use, which is why Parliament should address them with some urgency
gosub
~#
"the parliamentary questions aren't even showing up on Hansard.." sorry wrong on that, they aren't showing up where I was looking because they haven't been answered yet, 1 of the four has:
Paul Farrelly: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will (a) collect and (b) publish statistics on the number of non-reportable injunctions issued by the High Court in each of the last five years. [293012]
Bridget Prentice: The information requested is not available. The High Court collects figures on applications, however injunctions are not separately identifiable, and there are currently no plans to amend databases to do so.
Paul Farrelly: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will (a) collect and (b) publish statistics on the number of non-reportable injunctions issued by the High Court in each of the last five years. [293012]
Bridget Prentice: The information requested is not available. The High Court collects figures on applications, however injunctions are not separately identifiable, and there are currently no plans to amend databases to do so.
More from the appalling www.parliament.uk -
Further written evidence from Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian (PS 131) (14 Oct 2009)
Further written evidence from Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian (PS 131) (14 Oct 2009)
gosub
~#
More answers
Paul Farrelly: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) 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; [293006]
(2) what assessment he has made of the implications of the Court of Appeal judgment in May 2009 in the case of Michael Napier and Irwin Mitchell v. Pressdram Limited in respect of press freedom to report proceedings in court. [292409]
Mr. Straw: The issues raised by this and other similar cases are important and deserve to be properly explored. I intend to look into the issues raised and am ready to discuss them with my hon. Friend and any other hon. Member concerned. A meeting with representatives of the national press, senior officials of my Ministry has already been arranged.
Paul Farrelly: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what mechanisms HM Courts Service uses to draw up rosters of duty judges for the purpose of considering time of the essence applications for the issuing of injunctions by the High Court. [293013]
Mr. Straw: All High Court judges are required to act from time to time as duty judges for the purpose of dealing with urgent court business, such as applications to issue injunctions. Separate rosters are maintained for the Chancery, Family and Queens Bench Divisions but in each case these provide for a High Court judge being available to deal with such matters for 24 hours a day and on every day of the year.
Paul Farrelly: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) 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; [293006]
(2) what assessment he has made of the implications of the Court of Appeal judgment in May 2009 in the case of Michael Napier and Irwin Mitchell v. Pressdram Limited in respect of press freedom to report proceedings in court. [292409]
Mr. Straw: The issues raised by this and other similar cases are important and deserve to be properly explored. I intend to look into the issues raised and am ready to discuss them with my hon. Friend and any other hon. Member concerned. A meeting with representatives of the national press, senior officials of my Ministry has already been arranged.
Paul Farrelly: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what mechanisms HM Courts Service uses to draw up rosters of duty judges for the purpose of considering time of the essence applications for the issuing of injunctions by the High Court. [293013]
Mr. Straw: All High Court judges are required to act from time to time as duty judges for the purpose of dealing with urgent court business, such as applications to issue injunctions. Separate rosters are maintained for the Chancery, Family and Queens Bench Divisions but in each case these provide for a High Court judge being available to deal with such matters for 24 hours a day and on every day of the year.
Pah. The expected non-answer.
Await follow-up with interest, and how Farrelly avoids using the name "Eady".
What'll Eady do? Injunct him?
Similar threads
