Injunctions, parliamentary privilege and reporting

[TheAnimus]

But what about some kinds of privacy protection, bans on reporting on certain kinds of crime for the sake of a the victims?

[roachcoach]

I wouldn't think those would fall in the "super" category, more the regular one no?

[scaryjim]

Heh, and what does your old friend say about him these days then?

As far as I know they're still seeing each other, and very happy about it - apart from the kitten-snatching incident, obviously

[peterb]

There are a number of interesting points here. I alluded to one earlier in this thread about rights and responsibilities.

Now in this case a 'celeb' requested an injunction to protect his privacy (a 'right' granted under the ECHR). The press don't like these injunctions, because for the red tops, salacious stories sell papers.

If a journalist did leak the information to twitter (which has not bee proven) then he deserves to be prosecuted for contempt of court as he is challenging the rule of law. (As those journalists who hacked into voice mail will be prosecuted)

Now what about the MP who claimed immunity?

IMHO that was an abuse of the privilege. He has the right to say what he likes within the precinct of Parliament without fear of prosecution, but he has a duty to use that right responsibly. Parliament are the law makers and should be seen to be upholding the law that parliament has made (or signed up to).

The moral difficulty comes when the injunction system is used to cover up some dubious legal or ethical activity (such as dumping toxic waste in Africa). Was the judicial process correct in granting an injunction in that case? Probably not, but how do you legislate or provide guidlines for the judiciary?

(Answers on a post card to the Attorney General)

[danroyle]

There are a number of interesting points here. I alluded to one earlier in this thread about rights and responsibilities.

Now in this case a 'celeb' requested an injunction to protect his privacy (a 'right' granted under the ECHR). The press don't like these injunctions, because for the red tops, salacious stories sell papers.

If a journalist did leak the information to twitter (which has not bee proven) then he deserves to be prosecuted for contempt of court as he is challenging the rule of law. (As those journalists who hacked into voice mail will be prosecuted)

Now what about the MP who claimed immunity?

IMHO that was an abuse of the privilege. He has the right to say what he likes within the precinct of Parliament without fear of prosecution, but he has a duty to use that right responsibly. Parliament are the law makers and should be seen to be upholding the law that parliament has made (or signed up to).

The moral difficulty comes when the injunction system is used to cover up some dubious legal or ethical activity (such as dumping toxic waste in Africa). Was the judicial process correct in granting an injunction in that case? Probably not, but how do you legislate or provide guidlines for the judiciary?

(Answers on a post card to the Attorney General)

The mp is the one that should be punished the most he deliberately abused a power that was at his disposal,

[Nerval]

The mp is the one that should be punished the most he deliberately abused a power that was at his disposal,

from the BBC reports, other MPs think he was abusing the system too.

However, Giggs plays on his "family man" image, has his kids running round him etc, and makes endorsement cash on the back of it, so he shouldn't be allowed an injunction to cover it up.

If they don't want it to get out, they shouldn't do it.

[mcmiller]

Now what about the MP who claimed immunity?

IMHO that was an abuse of the privilege. He has the right to say what he likes within the precinct of Parliament without fear of prosecution, but he has a duty to use that right responsibly. Parliament are the law makers and should be seen to be upholding the law that parliament has made (or signed up to).

[/SIZE]

This is what the MPs are point is that they get to decide the law not the judges which in the case of the superjunctions this hasnt been the case

[shaithis]

I couldn't give a damn really, just as long as they don't feel the need to obscure half of the screen for a minute after every ad break during stargate again, just to let me know.....

[peterb]

This is what the MPs are point is that they get to decide the law not the judges which in the case of the superjunctions this hasnt been the case

MPs get to make the law, it is the Judiciary that implements it (under separation of powers). So if the MPs don't like they way the law they made has been implemented, they should change it, using due process.

The situation in this case is complicated because privacy has been enshrined in the EHCR, which a previous Parlisament endorsed. However it is now enshrined in British Law, and parliamentarians should be very careful before abusing their privilege in over-riding that law.

[mcmiller]

MPs get to make the law, it is the Judiciary that implements it (under separation of powers). So if the MPs don't like they way the law they made has been implemented, they should change it, using due process.

You're just being pedantic with my choice of words.

The MP s have said quite clearly that didn't make this law and that they think the judges have created a new law, not implemented a law. This is why so MPs, David C have been going on about it

[peterb]

You're just being pedantic with my choice of words.

The MP s have said quite clearly that didn't make this law and that they think the judges have created a new law, which isn't their remit. This is why so MPs, David C have been going on about it

No, certainly not. There is Statute Law, and there is Case law. Case law is the result of decisions made by the Judiciary in the interpretation of statute.

And the separation of powers is an essential part of Government. There is the Executive body which formulates and proposes Policy and Law, the Legislative body (The Houses of Commons and Lords) which creates Law after due process, and the Judiciary which implements it. The Judiciary are indepentant of the other two bodies (and more so since the creation of the Supreme Court)

The difficulty here is that the statutary law is stated in the ECHR, and has been interpreted by the Judiciary in a way that is not to Parliament's liking.

This raises another point though in that European legislation is being incorporated into British Law, which some (and I think I would agree) is eroding British Sovereignty over its own Judicial process.

But leaving aside the European aspect, a process exists to protect the privacy of an individual. Should an MP disregard that law, even though the injunction has been pretty much rendered useless through other means?

As the law making body, I would say no, because to maintain the rule of law, the law makers should uphold it. The counter argument is that Mr Justice Eady should have bowed to the inevitable and lifted the injunction on application by the tabloid press. But that would also have brought the law into disrepute as it had been swayed by media pressure - which should not consider itself above the law.

[roachcoach]

I think he used his immunity rightly, the situation for this particular injunction, at least to remain a "super" injunction was untenable. Everybody knew about it, everyone. I think this really turned the corner when the lawyers spoke to Twitter, there was probably a collective /facepalm in the tech world right about then.

The papers were in a ridiculous position not to be able to name someone/something already all over the internet, foreign media, indeed in a different part of the UK. The MP may have stuck two fingers up to that injunction, but that particular injunction in the "so-super-we-have-to-pretend-its-not-there" sense was beyond absurd.

I do think the judges are right to keep the media from reporting the story, what the point and who really cares, but I think it's silly to pretend the injunction isn't there any more.

[Mblaster]

Courtesy of B3ta