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 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.
I won't mention names that can be found by search engines. You can't be me, I'm taken
The new breed of super injunction is far more opressive than the traditional court order under which a newspaper or tv channelis (Perhaps temporarily) prevented from publishing a particular allegegation. It usually includes an order that "the publication of all information relating to these proceedings or of information describing them or the intended claim is expressly prohibited" (our italics) In other words no one can report that the order has been granted, or who applied for it, Even the identities of the judge and the newspaper remain secret, and anyone who even hints at them "May be held in contempt of court and may be imprisoned, fined, or have their assets siezed"
Apparently this is at least the 13th such order the guardian has recieved this year, although this one goes further in actually trying to ban the reporting of parliament. The eye points out that noone knows how many of these injunctions exist, because the different recipients cant talk to each other about them. Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
How it washes out in a full hearing is another matter ...
One MP, who the Guardian is currently prohibited from identifying, said he would ask the Speaker to consider taking action against Carter-Ruck for contempt of parliament.The ban on reporting parliamentary proceedings on legal grounds appears to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights.
One MP, who the Guardian is currently prohibited from identifying, said he would ask the Speaker to consider taking action against Carter-Ruck for contempt of parliament.
The ban on reporting parliamentary proceedings on legal grounds appears to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights.
A contempt of [under litigation] suit against them would be [under litigation.]
I'd be surprised if this has helped Trafigura's negotiating position.
