Trafigura lawyers attempt to muzzle Parliament ....

[Saracen]

.... or at least, the reporting of Parliament.

Most of you will be aware of the ongoing allegations over Trafigura dumping toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, and perhaps the Minton report. The allegations about the dumping certainly aren't exactly secret, as there's been more than one TV program about them.

What might not be so well-known is that, apparently, Trafigura's solicitors, Carter-Ruck, obtained a High Court injunction preventing the Guardian (and others) from reporting a question laid before Parliament. That injunction forced the Guardian to pull a story today, about a question asked of the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw. That question was

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.

The injunction prevented the reporting of :-

• which MP asked the question
  
  
• which minister was asked the question
  
  
• the question itself
  
  
• where the question is to be found (tough it isn't hard to find).
  
  
• what legal proceedings were involved
  
  
• who the client of the solicitors obtaining the injunction is
  
  
• why Parliamentary proceedings are being suppressed
  

The injunction has now been lifted ... dropped, apparently, before a Guardian challenge that was expected to take place later today. I was preparing a very different, and carefully guarded, expression of disgust and outrage, but now I can be a lot less guarded.

Firstly, I query what those in high places at whoever decided on this injunction, be it Trafigura or their lawyers (and I doubt it would be the latter without the approval of the former), thought they were doing. Regardless of the facts of the original allegations and whatever truth their may or may not be in them, can they seriously not see how this makes them look? Can they not imagine what the public reaction, much less media reaction, to a an attempt to suppress the reporting of Parliamentary proceedings was going to be?

And perhaps most seriously, are they really so terminally stupid or buried in the past as to think this injunction could possibly succeed?

If they did think the latter, I have a newsflash for them. In today's age of the internet and the blogosphere, you cannot suppress a story like this. No court in the world has the power to do it. You might be able to block UK news outlets from reporting the details (though it's highly doubtful how long for), but you can't prevent them from reporting that they've been blocked. And with so many blogs operating around the world and totally outside the jurisdiction of UK courts, you won't prevent many of them from giving details. And with search engines, you can't stop people from finding those details.

My personal journey went like this :-

- hear about the injunction on the Daily Politics
- read the Guardian, Spectator, BBC etc, Locate name of solicitors.
- spend a few minutes with Google, etc.
- locate the name Trafigura
- realise what it's all about, and get details.

Elapsed time from hearing of the injunction to acquiring the details .... under 15 minutes.

That, Trafigura, is the nature of the net today. So who is the numpty that thought this injunction was a good idea?

Firstly, who is the numpty that thought an injunction could stop this getting out for more than a brief period?

Secondly, who is the numpty that didn't realise that the mere attempt to prevent Parliamentary proceedings from being reported was a FAR bigger story for the media than your alleged toxic dumping, as utterly reprehensible and horrible as that is, if true?

Did you really not consider that you'd be not just be pouring petrol on the flames of this story, you'd be dumping high explosive into the flames?

I'll lay a small bet. If you attempt to muzzle the press like this, especially over reporting Parliamentary proceedings, you're gifting the press a whole new story with which to raise the profile of the very thing you're trying to suppress. But perhaps worse than that, you're making a positive enemy of the press, and pretty much guaranteeing that they'll be out for blood, that this will drag on longer than in otherwise would and with a much higher profile. Anyone want to guess what a main story, if the the lead, on Newsnight today will be? I'd guess it won't just be the alleged dumping and the Minton report, it'll be the grossly undemocratic attempt to prevent us, the people, finding out what's going on in our name in our own Parliament. It'll probably also hit newspaper lead stories tomorrow, and maybe front pages if nothing overtakes it. It'll probably be on the evening news and/or late evening news.

If you wanted to give the press a hound to hunt, and an incentive for them to track it until they get it, I can't think of a better go. Way to go in the PR stakes, guys. It's not so much shooting yourself in the foot, as blowing you leg off at the hip.

I rather wonder if one outcome of this decision will be :-

Unemployment total = Unemployment total + 1.