Jack Straw to consult newspapers on Carter-Ruck-style 'super-injunctions'

Blimey Debbie that reads very positive, wonder what CR have to say on this change.

I love this line by Ms Prentice about CR
She added: "I am happy to ensure that we send them a copy of Article 9 [of the Bill of Rights 1689], so that they can read and peruse it at their leisure."

Lillyofthevalley wrote:Blimey Debbie that reads very positive, wonder what CR have to say on this change.

Yes we shall have to wait and see , Carter Ruck cannot always be right can they ???

I am glad that you did not jump the Madeleine-Ship, Debbie Butler. They can not censor all they would like to.

Carter Ruck have been legal bullies for long enough imo and hopefully things are going to change for the better, and hopefully the worst for CR.

Lilemor yes this is good news

I am gagged so cannot comment as much as I would wish , but I certainly will not be bullied

[quote=\"Lillyofthevalley\"]Carter Ruck have been legal bullies for long enough imo and hopefully things are going to change for the better, and hopefully the worst for CR.

Lilemor yes this is good news [/quote]
Thank you, Lilly, that´s fine! 

browneyes wrote:Interesting stuff Debbie.

"Prentice told MPs the advice given to the Guardian by Carter-Ruck that the newspaper would be in contempt for reporting Farrelly's question, was incorrect."

How much more 'incorrect' information, deliberate or otherwise, have they imparted to those who they wish to threaten and gag?


Let's hope that the newspaper lawyers leave the officials from the department in no doubt whatsoever about how these super-injunctions have prevented the press from reporting the REAL news stories - especially over the past two and a half years.

Interesting times imminently ahead

Carter Ruck have obviously picked on the wrong ones this time, trying to shut The Guardian up and its back fired, now this, yes I agree interesting times ahead.

The timing might be right to send Jack Straw a letter !!

Straw to consult newspapers on super-injunctions
26 October 2009

By Oliver Luft, Press Gazette

Justice Secretary Jack Straw has launched a consultation with lawyers from major newspapers following the row over "super-injunctions" following the Trafigura row.

Junior justice minister Bridget Prentice told MPs last week that a number of senior judges would also be involved in a consultation over court orders which ban publication of certain information and also ban reporting about the order being made.

Prentice told MPs: "We are very concerned that super-injunctions are being used more commonly, particularly in the area of libel and privacy.

"The Secretary of State for Justice [Straw] has already asked senior officials in the department to discuss the matter with lawyers from the major newspapers. We are also involving the judiciary in a consultation.

"We are looking specifically at how the use of super-injunctions has had an effect and what we therefore need to do on that."

Prentice told MPs during a debate on 21 October she would relay MPs message that further guidelines might be needed for judiciary to the Justice Secretary and the Lord Chief Justice.

The Prime Minister told MPs earlier this month Straw would examine the use of so-called "super injunctions" after the Guardian reported that it had been prevented from reporting a Parliamentary question tabled by Newcastle-under-Lyme MP Paul Farrelly, a former journalist, relating to oil company Trafigura because of an injunction obtained by the firm's lawyers, Carter Ruck.

Prentice told MPs the advice given to the Guardian by Carter-Ruck that the newspaper would be in contempt for reporting Farrelly's question, was incorrect.

She added: "I am happy to ensure that we send them a copy of Article 9 [of the Bill of Rights 1689], so that they can read and peruse it at their leisure."

''Prentice told MPs the advice given to the Guardian by Carter-Ruck that the newspaper would be in contempt for reporting Farrelly's question, was incorrect.''

*************************************

I wonder if Gerald and Kate McCann are getting proper sound advice from these same lawyers?

They have consistently used the wrong types of detective agencies for the past two and a half years. They have had bad advice on how to conduct themselves in public - especially on tv and interviews. They have even had bad publicity from their own family members (such as Philomena who made Kate McCann sound like a raging monster) and the Healys (who made Madeleine look like a handful who needed tranx before bed-time) ............... It would be so rotten for the McCanns to have to admit that they have lawyers acting for them who don't really know what they are doing either.

From "The Lawyer", Todayhttp://www.thelawyer.com/lawyers-leap-to-carter-ruck’s-defence/1002372.articleLawyers leap to Carter-Ruck’s defence
26 October 2009 | By Katy Dowell 

Freedom of speech is the pride of the UK, but with it comes a duty of responsibility. So when newspaper editors start complaining that their freedoms have been curtailed, it becomes a concern for the nation.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown last week called a House of Commons debate about the rise in the number of super-injunctions being issued against newspapers.
Lawyers, however, are puzzled by the fuss, saying it is not a new fight but a natural consequence of the Human Rights Act (HRA) and the contradiction between Article 8, the right to privacy, and Article 10, the right to freedom of expression.
“There’s a myth about super-injunctions,” said Steeles Law partner Dominic Crossley. “Media organisations create the impression that they’re bombarded with injunctions. My personal view is that there aren’t anything like the numbers they say. It’s an exception rather than a rule.”
Withers partner Jennifer McDermott agrees. “They’re very unusual orders,” she said. As she explains, if the injunction turns out to be issued wrongly the applicant would be liable for losses caused to the defendant.
“You have to approach this on the basis that injunctions are not the easiest thing to get,” added Russell Jones & Walker head of media and libel Sarah Webb. “It’s very expensive and the courts are aware that it’s a draconian step. They’re never going to be handed out like aspirin.”
But newspaper lawyers thought it was a step too far when a super-injunction extended to the House of Commons, preventing The Guardian from publishing details of parliamentary questions asked about oil company Trafigura. Trafigura’s libel lawyers Carter-Ruck attempted to stop the reporting of a question by Labour MP Paul Farrelly.
The Guardian director of editorial legal services Gill Phillips said: “I do think there’s a real issue of concern about the use of the so-called super-injunction, particularly where they relate to an anonymous corporate claimant and seek to prevent any mention of the existence of a claim. It needs to be remembered that we have a principle of open justice in this country.”
The Guardian injunction was initially issued on 11 September, when the paper wanted to publish a report relating to a claim that Trafigura was fighting over the toxic dumping of waste in the Ivory Coast (The Lawyer, 23 September).
That case was settled without Trafigura conceding liability. At the same time the oil company also settled a libel case against the claimants’ lawyer, Martyn Day of Leigh Day & Co.
Carter-Ruck argued that the gagging order also prevented the paper from publishing details of questions asked in Westminster. This sparked outrage among MPs about the threat to parliamentary privilege and the order was withdrawn the next day.
The Prime Minister then decided that a further debate about super-injunctions was needed.
Media lawyers responded to the announcement with a degree of scepticism.
“Parliament needs to take pressure away from other things that are going on,” one said. “Suddenly everyone’s talking about it - whatever happened to the debate on MPs’ expenses?”
During the parliamentary debate on 21 October Justice Minister Bridget Prentice said she was alarmed over the wider use of super-injunctions and would consider whether to issue new guidelines to the judiciary.
The media, meanwhile, launched attacks on Carter-Ruck for its part in orchestrating the injunction.
Media lawyers have come to the firm’s defence, accepting that it may be a PR disaster but pointing out that Carter-Ruck was only following the rule of law.
“The criticism of Carter-Ruck is unfair,” said Crossley. “They were only following an instruction about which no one will ever know. Nobody will know what’s gone on behind the scenes. The order’s obtained from the courts.”
“Carter-Ruck didn’t invent this,” another media partner said. “They had to look at [the injunction] on the basis of the facts and how it relates to the Human Rights Act.”
There are instances, the lawyer argued, where parliamentary privilege can be curtailed. “For example, there could be an MP who has health issues - there’s no public interest argument there. On the facts of the case you could apply for an injunction to stop a paper publishing.”
The Guardian said it had received at least 12 orders preventing it from publishing in the past year. This compared with six in 2006 and five in 2005.
McDermott conceded that it “seems like an awful lot” and said she was “particularly surprised” that it was The Guardian and not the tabloids that had gone public on injunctions against it.
“I’ve defended newspapers facing claims for breach of confidence and invasion of privacy,” McDermott said. “I also act for claimants asserting such rights. Only rarely have I sought injunctive relief, and only when there’s no question of any public interest defence applying.”
Another lawyer commented: “The difficulty is that the media hates anything that fetters with their discretion.”
The legal maze between the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression is expected to become more jumbled next month when Chelsea FC footballer Ashley Cole launches a High Court privacy action against the Mirror Group.
Graham Shear, who recently left Teacher Stern to join Berwin Leighton Paisner (The Lawyer, 6 August), has instructed 5 Raymond Buildings’ David Sherborne for Cole. Cole is seeking damages over allegations he had been having affairs and caused upset to his wife, Cheryl Cole.
Lawyers will argue that Cole and his family have a right to privacy and that some of the allegations were factually incorrect.
The Mirror Group will be represented by Farrer & Co partner Julian Pike and Alexandra Marzec, also of 5 Raymond Buildings.
When the HRA was devised, Articles 8 and 10 were intended to conflict, with the courts deciding on definition.
The media is right to defend its corner, but it should not attempt to curtail the right of its subjects to complain. Articles 8 and 10 serve the purposes of all, despite what the critics say.
Cole Undermining
The legal maze between the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression is expected to become more jumbled next month when Chelsea FC footballer Ashley Cole launches a High Court privacy action against the Mirror Group.
Graham Shear, who recently left Teacher Stern to join Berwin Leighton Paisner (The Lawyer, 6 August), has instructed 5 Raymond Buildings’ David Sherborne for Cole. Cole is seeking damages over allegations he had been having affairs and caused upset to his wife, Cheryl Cole.
Lawyers will argue that Cole and his family have a right to privacy and that some of the allegations were factually incorrect.
The Mirror Group will be represented by Farrer & Co partner Julian Pike and Alexandra Marzec, also of 5 Raymond Buildings.
When the HRA was devised, Articles 8 and 10 were intended to conflict, with the courts deciding on definition.
The media is right to defend its corner, but it should not attempt to curtail the right of its subjects to complain. Articles 8 and 10 serve the purposes of all, despite what the critics say.

From The "Guardian", a few minutes agohttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/16/carter-ruck-abandon-minton-injunctionMinton report: Carter-Ruck give up bid to keep Trafigura study secret
Lawyers for oil traders Trafigura finally abandoned attempts to keep secret a scientific report about toxic waste dumping in west Africa, that was shown to the Guardian.
Just after 7.30pm Carter-Ruck, libel lawyers for Trafigura, wrote a letter to the Guardian which said the newspaper should regard itself as "released forthwith" from any reporting restrictions. An MP revealed the report's existence to parliament this week, after the Guardian was hit with a "super-injunction" banning all mention of it and other UK media were then subsequently notified of, and therefore bound by it.
The Minton report, commissioned in 2006 from the London-based firm's scientific consultants, said that based on the "limited" information they had been given Trafigura's oil waste, dumped cheaply the month before in a city in Ivory Coast, was potentially toxic, and "capable of causing severe human health effects".
The study said early reports of large scale medical problems among the inhabitants of Abidjan, were consistent with a release of a cloud of potentially lethal hydrogen sulphide gas over the city. The effects could have included severe burns to the skin and lungs, eye damage, permanent ulceration, coma and death.
The author of this initial draft study, John Minton, of consultants Minton, Treharne & Davies, said dumping the waste would have been illegal in Europe and the proper method of disposal should have been a specialist chemical treatment called wet air oxidation.
Although the report was cautious, pointing out that unreliable press reports and "mass hysteria" might have led to exaggeration of alleged ill effects, its contents were unwelcome.
Trafigura subsequently did not use the report in the personal injury report in the claim against them and did not dislcose the report's existence.
It issued a series of public statements over the next three years saying the waste had been routinely disposed of and was harmless. Trafigura based this decision on other reports produced from an analysis of the slops obtained from the Probo Koala ship. Trafigura dismissed complaints of illness in a lawsuit brought by 30,000 inhabitants of Abidjan, before being forced last month to pay them £30m in compensation and legal costs in a confidential out of court settlement.
The oil firm then conceded in a public statement that the toxic fumes could have caused "flu-like symptoms" to the inhabitants. But it was accepted in an agreed statement by both sides that expert evidence did not back the more serious claims of deaths, miscarriages or serious injuries, made in previous official statements by the Ivory Coast and British governments and in a UN report.

Before the settlement announcement, Trafigura's lawyers Carter-Ruck obtained a super-injunction from a judge, banning the Guardian not only from revealing the existence of the Minton report, but also from telling anyone about the existence of the injunction.
They said the Minton report was confidential because it had been obtained for possible use in litigation. Trafigura said the report was only preliminary and had proved to be inaccurate. They said hydrogen sulphide in the waste could not have broken down into a dangerous gas after the dumping and that other experts had concluded: "no other chemicals were released in concentrations capable of causing significant harm to human health".
Carter-Ruck was unable to prevent the publication of internal company emails by the Guardian, which confirmed Trafigura executives had been aware in advance that their waste was hazardous, and knew that it ought to have received expensive specialist treatment. Company traders talked about making "serious dollars" from paying someone to take away their "shit".
Attempts by Carter-Ruck to suppress the Minton report led to a controversy about parliamentary privilege this week, when the law firm initially tried to prevent reporting of parliamentary questions tabled by the Labour MP Paul Farrelly. They later abandoned this attempt. Carter-Ruck was accused by MPs of potential contempt of parliament.
Tonight, Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian's editor, said: "I welcome the climbdown by Trafigura and Carter-Ruck. Now people can read the Minton report they will realise why it was in the public interest for it to be published. It has taken a five-week legal battle – involving journalists, lawyers, bloggers and parliament itself – to force this information into the open. Never again should a newspaper be threatened with contempt of court for reporting parliament. And judges should think again about the use of super-injunctions which are themselves secret. This is a good day for parliament, open justice and free reporting."
Pierre Lorinet, Trafigura's chief financial officer, told the Telegraph: "We decided that our best course of action at the time was to get the injunction, because we didn't want more inaccurate reporting on things which are very clearly wrong effectively. It is a heavy-handed approach, absolutely. With hindsight, could it have been done differently? Possibly. The injunction was never intended to gag parliament or attack free speech."

Methinks it is time to ask the European Courts if Dr. Amaral and the Madeleine Foundation can be silenced by a bunch of lawyers.

The police files have been made PUBLIC. Why do Kate and Gerald McCann not want the public to see them?

After all ............. they did as much as they could to help the police. Yeah, right!

They have done as much as they could, but Kate McCann chooses not to answer questions about her own daughter. And no medical records to be seen.

Jak Straw .......... get off your bony arse and squash these injunctions. You have got enough skeletons in your own closets. Don't help others to hide theirs.

''Pierre Lorinet, Trafigura's chief financial officer, told the Telegraph: "We decided that our best course of action at the time was to get the injunction, because we didn't want more inaccurate reporting on things which are very clearly wrong effectively. It is a heavy-handed approach, absolutely. With hindsight, could it have been done differently? Possibly. The injunction was never intended to gag parliament or attack free speech."

***********************************

So, if it wasn't ''intended to gag parliament or attack free speech." what was it for???

Why are Fa*ter-Fu*ck telling the Madeleine Foundation to take down their web-site and destroy all the leaflets and booklets that only seek to promote the evidence in the police files?

The police files have more valid rights to be in the public domain than the Minton Report.

browneyes wrote:Interesting stuff Debbie.

"Prentice told MPs the advice given to the Guardian by Carter-Ruck that the newspaper would be in contempt for reporting Farrelly's question, was incorrect."

How much more 'incorrect' information, deliberate or otherwise, have they imparted to those who they wish to threaten and gag?


Let's hope that the newspaper lawyers leave the officials from the department in no doubt whatsoever about how these super-injunctions have prevented the press from reporting the REAL news stories - especially over the past two and a half years.

Even I (with only a very basic knowledge of the law) couldn't understand why something said in Parliament couldn't be reported. So it was the wrong information. They should be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice. That's what I think.

I have been dying to tell you all, that somebody I know has had sexual liaisons with two people who work for these lawyers earlier year.

I wouldn't recommend you watch it, but there is some really clear pillow-talk .

I will send you a link for youtube or wherever it is loaded up as soon as I get it.

Perhaps this is a step forward. Perhaps Jack Straw will become aware, if he isn't already, of any super-injunction which has been imposed on the press about reporting about the Madeleine case. Fingers crossed, everybody!

Jem wrote:''Pierre Lorinet, Trafigura's chief financial officer, told the Telegraph: "We decided that our best course of action at the time was to get the injunction, because we didn't want more inaccurate reporting on things which are very clearly wrong effectively. police files?

The police files have more valid rights to be in the public domain than the Minton Report.

Inaccurate reporting. Well who decides whether or not the reporting is inaccurate. Carter Ruck? It would seem so.

Jem wrote:I have been dying to tell you all, that somebody I know has had sexual liaisons with two people who work for these lawyers earlier year.

I wouldn't recommend you watch it, but there is some really clear pillow-talk .

I will send you a link for youtube or wherever it is loaded up as soon as I get it.

Hurry up woman

Get em Goncalo .............. ''Isn't Stuart Syvret having problems with Jack Straw over the cover up at Haut de la Garenne?''

**********************

He is going to have a more probems if he doesn't hurry up and help us find out what really happened to Madeleine McCann, aged three years.

Jack, whilst you are at it, please get me a list of all those nautical details I wrote to you about two years ago. There are lots of people who grew up in Jersey who want to talk about .......... some boat-trips and sailing week-ends that they were forced to go on. That, and some missing teeth.

Hurry up Jack. Don't wait until your Party get trounced at the next election, so that you can slide off into oblivion, like General Pinochet.

justagrannynow wrote:Debbie and Tony, I have merged the topic "Carter Ruck" with the "Jack Straw to consult ...." topic as they are both covering the same subject.

On the ball as usual Granny