A version of this post first appeared on MalcolmColes.co.uk.
Having failed to stop the Guardian reporting an MP asking a question about its client British oil company Trafigura and the injunction concerning the Minton report, law firm Carter-Ruck is making a second attempt to gag Parliament.
The firm has written a 3-page letter to the speaker of the House of Commons – in the middle of which are these two paragraphs:
“Until that resolution [of the matter referred to in the injunction], it is not appropriate to comment on the Order [the injunction], other than to make it clear that we and our clients are in no doubt that it was entirely appropriate for us to seek the injunctive relief in question …
“Clearly the question of whether this matter is sub judice is entirely a matter for your [the speaker's] discretion, although we would observe that we believe the proceedings to have been and to remain ‘Active’ within the definition of House Resolution CJ (2001-02) 194-195 of 15 November 2001 in that arrangements have been made for the hearing of an application before the Court.”
Matters sub judice
Resolution of 15th November 2001
Resolved, That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, and to the right of the House to legislate on any matter or to discuss any delegated legislation, the House in all its proceedings (including proceedings of committees of the House) shall apply the following rules on matters sub judice:
(1) Cases in which proceedings are active in United Kingdom courts shall not be referred to in any motion, debate or question.
(b) (i) Civil proceedings are active when arrangements for the hearing, such as setting down a case for trial, have been made, until the proceedings are ended by judgment or discontinuance.
So although it is not spelt out in the letter, Carter-Ruck has written to the speaker to suggest that this matter is sub judice – active legal proceedings – and should not therefore be discussed in Parliament, according to the Westminster rules which prohibit MPs’ debates in those circumstances.
Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat MP had secured a debate for next week looking at the effects of English libel law on the reporting of parliamentary proceedings.
The speaker has not yet indicated whether he will provide a ruling.
- Guardian.co.uk coverage on the latest development
- Out-law.com: The sub judice rule
- Journalism.co.uk coverage of the case involving the Guardian, Trafigura and Carter-Ruck can be found at this link
- Jon Wessel-Aas: ‘Could a little media civil disobedience kill British law’s injunction monster?’
- MediaGuardian: MPs’ super injunction debate to go ahead on Wednesday
- ‘Super injunctions’ parliamentary debate: kicks off 2.30 pm
- Guardian gagged from reporting parliament
- Carter-Ruck abandons attempt to gag Guardian on Trafigura question
- ‘Firms like Carter-Ruck have become expert at pressing certain legal buttons,’ says David Leigh