Guardian gagged from reporting parliament

[Hopeless Romantic]

The Guardian 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.

Today's published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found.

The Guardian is also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented – for the first time in memory – from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret.

The only fact the Guardian can report is that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck, who specialise in suing the media for clients, who include individuals or global corporations.

The Guardian has vowed urgently to go to court to overturn the gag on its reporting. The editor, Alan Rusbridger, said: "The media laws in this country increasingly place newspapers in a Kafkaesque world in which we cannot tell the public anything about information which is being suppressed, nor the proceedings which suppress it. It is doubly menacing when those restraints include the reporting of parliament itself."

The media lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC said Lord Denning ruled in the 1970s that "whatever comments are made in parliament" can be reported in newspapers without fear of contempt.

He said: "Four rebel MPs asked questions giving the identity of 'Colonel B', granted anonymity by a judge on grounds of 'national security'. The DPP threatened the press might be prosecuted for contempt, but most published."

The right to report parliament was the subject of many struggles in the 18th century, with the MP and journalist John Wilkes fighting every authority – up to the king – over the right to keep the public informed. After Wilkes's battle, wrote the historian Robert Hargreaves, "it gradually became accepted that the public had a constitutional right to know what their elected representatives were up to".


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/12/guardian-gagged-from-reporting-parliament

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. I wonder if this is connected with the story in the last issue of Private Eye

Last month a certain institution obtained a high court injunction to prevent a certain newspaper from publishing a certain document. More than that we cannot say; to do so is fraught with danger.
...
The Guardian's legal correspondent noted last week that "it is impossible to say just how many of these cases there are", since no one can report or discuss them - though the Eye learns that one MP hopes to break the conspiracy of silence, under parliamentary privilege, when the Commons reassembles later this month. But it's clear that they are breeding and sprouting like giant hogweed: "The Guardian, for instance, has been served with at least 12 notices of injunctions that could not be reported so far this year, compared with six in the whole of 2006 and five in 2005."
...
In one recent application for a super-injunction, the QC for the claimants explained to the judge why a newspaper must not only be stopped from publishing its story but also banned from alluding to the gagging order: if it was allowed to report the injunction, it would probably run a piece accusing his clients of trying to muzzle the press.

Which, of course, is precisely what they were doing. The super-injunction was duly granted.

(Not online, unfortunately).

It also points out how Andrew Marr, while publicly calling for a debate on privacy law, got an injunction to stop the media revealing 'private information' about him, which at first included the fact that he'd got the injunction. So he was taking a public position, while others couldn't talk about how he himself used the system. Eventually Private Eye was allowed to reveal that Marr had got the injunction. And The Eye had a long fight against a former Law Society president about revealing the fact that the Law Society had censured him for his actions as a lawyer. He had claimed that it would be an invasion of privacy to make this public!

The Guardian piece the Eye refers to: Sorry, we can't tell you. And we can't tell you that we can't.

[Hopeless Romantic]

2. The Marr thing is well known...

Just Google

"Andrew Marr" AND "Alice Miles"

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Oh, that. It rings a vague bell

It's the "you can't talk about an injunction, but I can talk about privacy law as if the injunction doens't exist" that annoys me, not the affair.

[Hopeless Romantic]

3. Guido Fawkes alleges

http://order-order.com/2009/10/12/guardian-gagged-from-reporting-parliament/

[TheBigotBasher]

4. Which may or may not relate to this

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE58M2VO20090923

[TheBigotBasher]

5. None of the linked stories are connected

as far as I know.

http://thebigotbasher.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/is-there-a-free-press/

[T_i_B]

7. The Parliamentary Question Carter Ruck and Trafigura don’t want you to see

http://richardwilsonauthor.wordpress.com/2009/10/12/the-parliamentary-question-carter-ruck-and-trafigura-dont-want-you-to-see/

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.

More background info here. The UK blogosphere is going apeshit over this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/16/trafigura-oil-ivory-coast

[Hopeless Romantic]

8. The Spectator have published this on their website now

http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/5417651/british-press-banned-from-reporting-parliament-seriously.thtml

Good for them.

[Nihil]

9. Thanks TiB (and upthread posters) for sharing this information.

It is disgustingly disgraceful that this situation can exist where corrupt
libel lawyers get away with covering up their clients' crimes.

Either part of that statement could have caused the block to be triggered:
the Barclays tax evasion schemes or the Trafigura illegal toxic dumping.

The Trafigura dumping report:
http://www.wikileaks.com/wiki/Minton_report:_Trafigura_Toxic_dumping_along_the_Ivory_Coast_broke_EU_regulations,_14_Sep_2006


Obituary for the founder of Carter-Ruck (from a former partner):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/dec/23/pressandpublishing.comment

"he did for freedom of speech what the Boston Strangler did for door-to-door salesmen."

[Hopeless Romantic]

10. Further Update

Trafigura tops list of Twitter trending topics

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/6315133/Trafigura-tops-list-of-Twitter-trending-topics.html

and a quick Google News search now returns nearly 600 results

http://news.google.co.uk/news?rlz=1C1CHMG_en-GBGB291GB303&sourceid=chrome&q=Trafigura&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn


I (and I suspect 99.9% of the population) had never heard of Trifigura before this story broke.

Way to go Carter-Ruck

[T_i_B]

11. Don't thank me. Thank the Blogosphere

Everything I've found I've gleaned from Blogs. A number of Blogs have taken this story up and given it big exposure.

As has also been mentioned, Trafigura is the number 1 topic on Twitter, and Carter Ruck number 2. This injunction has backfired bigtime on Carter Ruck.

[T_i_B]

12. Protect Our Free Press: Stop the Gag

Tell your MP to stand up for the media’s right to report on politicians in Westminster: e-mail them in two minutes, now.

http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/speakout/gdiangag

Today, the Guardian newspaper has been prevented from reporting Parliamentary business in Westminster: one the most serious threats to media freedom in the UK in memory. Worse still, many suspect that the gag is to protect the reputation of a major multinational company.

Journalists need to be free to scrutinise our elected politicians. Without a free press, it’s unlikely we would have heard about the expenses scandal or the shady dealings over the start of the Iraq war. We can’t let corporate interests threaten journalists’ right to report the news.

If we all contact our MPs and urge them to challenge the decision to gag the Guardian in Parliament today and every day, until the gag is lifted, then we can stand up for our right to a free media. E-mail your MP now, in less than two minutes.

[Hopeless Romantic]

13. Carter-Fucked! Gag lifted

The existence of a previously secret injunction against the media by oil traders Trafigura can now be revealed.

Within the past hour Trafigura's legal firm, Carter-Ruck, has withdrawn its opposition to the Guardian reporting proceedings in parliament that 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, but the firm has dropped its claim that to report parliament would be in contempt of court.

Here is the full text of Farrelly's question:

"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."

At Westminster earlier today urgent questions were tabled by the Liberal Democrats in an attempt to get an emergency debate about the injunction.

Bloggers were active this morning in speculating about what lay behind the ban on the Guardian reporting parliamentary questions. Proposals being circulated online included plans for a protest outside the offices of Carter-Ruck.

The ban on reporting parliamentary proceedings on legal grounds appeared to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights.

Today's published Commons order papers contained Farrelly's question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian was initially prevented from identifying the MP who had asked the question, what the question was, which minister might answer it, or where the question was to be found.

The only fact the Guardian was able report was that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck, who specialise in suing the media for clients including individuals and global corporations.

The media lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC said Lord Denning ruled in the 1970s that "whatever comments are made in parliament" can be reported in newspapers without fear of contempt.

He said: "Four rebel MPs asked questions giving the identity of 'Colonel B', granted anonymity by a judge on grounds of 'national security'. The DPP threatened the press might be prosecuted for contempt, but most published."

The right to report parliament was the subject of many struggles in the 18th century, with the MP and journalist John Wilkes fighting every authority – up to the king – over the right to keep the public informed. After Wilkes's battle, wrote the historian Robert Hargreaves, "it gradually became accepted that the public had a constitutional right to know what their elected representatives were up to".


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/13/guardian-gagged-parliamentary-question

[T_i_B]

14. How Twitter toppled a court injunction

Well done to all concerned in getting this overturned! And it says something that the injunction got made a mockery of so quickly and effectively. Here's an article about what happened on Twitter. I joined that site a couple of weeks ago and until today I didn't think owt much of it!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8304908.stm

In one sense, the injunction was effective. In most of the mainstream media this morning, you would have found no mention of who or what was involved. No injunction was served on the BBC, but ever since the Spycatcher case in the 1980s news organisations which knowingly breach an injunction served on others are in contempt of court, so the corporation too felt bound by the Guardian injunction.

But the lawyers in this case clearly reckoned without the "blogosphere". In the anarchic, anything-goes world of the internet, where free speech is a frequently-heard rallying cry, injunctions banning publication of anything are unpopular. This one seems to have acted like a red rag to a bull.

The social networking site Twitter was soon awash with posts deploring a threat to media freedom and the reporting of Parliament.

Stephen Fry, celebrity tweeter, called it "this barbaric assault on free speech", and the very information Trafigura and its lawyers were anxious to keep secret was being freely bandied about.

[ikri]

15. Streisand effect

The Streisand effect is an Internet phenomenon where an attempt to censor or remove a piece of information backfires, causing the information to be publicized widely and to a greater extent than would have occurred if no censorship had been attempted.

Named after Barbra Streisand who sued a website to remove an image of her home, whilst almost no one had heard of the site in question prior to the law suit, once the news of the suit appeared the image was circulated quickly and widely.

The wikipedia article on the Streisand effect now includes a note on Trafigura/Carter-Ruck in the notable examples of the effect.

Should just add too, the judge who gave the OK to the gag order should be heavily censured for such crass stupidity. The right to report on Parliament has been tried and tested for centuries. It isn't a new area of the law that needed a test case, Carter-Ruck should have been laughed out of court for even making the request.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

16. Agreed

Should just add too, the judge who gave the OK to the gag order should be heavily censured for such crass stupidity. The right to report on Parliament has been tried and tested for centuries. It isn't a new area of the law that needed a test case, Carter-Ruck should have been laughed out of court for even making the request.

Once the Guardian got a hearing in court, it would likely have been a matter of time before the reporting ban would have been thrown-out.

But like you and others have pointed out, it shouldn't have been served in the first place. Perhaps the judge could plead temporary insanity.

[T_i_B]

17. Maybe it should now be called"The Carter-Ruck Effect"?

I would also agree with you about the poor judgment. If parliamentary questions are freely available on http://www.parliament.uk/ it's ridiculous to try and prevent newspapers reporting them.

And that's before you even consider the dangerous constitutional precedent.

[T_i_B]

18. Carter-Ruck in new move to stop debate in parliament

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/15/carter-ruck-trafigura-parliament-injunction

The law firm Carter-Ruck has made a fresh move that could stop an MPs' debate next week by claiming a controversial injunction it has obtained is "sub judice".

The move follows the revelation of the existence of a secret "super-injunction" obtained by the firm on behalf of the London-based oil traders Trafigura.

Carter-Ruck partner Adam Tudor today sent a letter to the Speaker, John Bercow, and also circulated it to every single MP and peer, saying they believed the case was "sub judice".

If correct, it would mean that, under Westminster rules to prevent clashes between parliament and the courts, a debate planned for next Wednesday could not go ahead.

http://www.carter-ruck.com/Documents//Letter-Right_Hon_John_Bercow-141009.PDF

[ikri]

19. Very brave or very stupid, not sure which

Not sure it's the best idea to pick a fight with Parliament at a time when a large number of MPs will do almost anything to distract attention away from renewed interest in their finances.

[T_i_B]

20. Minton report: Carter-Ruck give up bid to keep Trafigura study secret

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/16/carter-ruck-abandon-minton-injunction

And here is the report itself!

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2009/10/16/mintonreport.pdf