Super Injunctions by Carter Ruck Proof of Existence

Well, well well as I was trawling the internet for information on the upcoming 2011 census (yes I know another farce in the making but we have 18 months on that!) guess what I came across, none other than these so called Super injunctions actually being alive, well and kicking. Now for some time I admit I have sat on that great bloody cyber fence with one foot dangling more towards the side of "I don't think they could possibly exist, it's either an injunction or it isn't". Well, the DO exist and in fact who ever breathed life in these super injunctions is the biggest barstool that walks this earth!

Evidence is here:

http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/blog/2009/10/17/carter-rucks-trafigura-scandal-non-reportable-super--injunctions---mr-justice-ma.html

You may also like to cut your teeth on this one which is a gagging order on The Guardian newspaper in the same case. It gives credence to the point that others have made that the McCann's may have these Super Injunctions on elements in the press stifling any further reporting!

https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Minton_report_secret_injunction_gagging_The_Guardian_on_Trafigura%2C_11_Sep_2009

I read that the use of super injunctions where even there existence cannot be acknowledged are up this year to 11 from an average of about 5 or 6 per year previously.

One of the special weapons in the arsenal of Carter Ruck perhaps for clients who are devious enough to have some nasty secrets to keep the lid on, like Trafigura and Kate and Gerry McCann.

Now that parliament are looking more closely at these super injunctions, which hardly represent open justice, maybe we will find out whether Kate and Gerry got one of those. I would not be the least bit surprised.

It is strange, that the British press simply do not report, at all on the contents of the PJ files. I suppose the reason could be British Police warned them not to, but..

viv wrote:I read that the use of super injunctions where even there existence cannot be acknowledged are up this year to 11 from an average of about 5 or 6 per year previously.

One of the special weapons in the arsenal of Carter Ruck perhaps for clients who are devious enough to have some nasty secrets to keep the lid on, like Trafigura and Kate and Gerry McCann.

Now that parliament are looking more closely at these super injunctions, which hardly represent open justice, maybe we will find out whether Kate and Gerry got one of those. I would not be the least bit surprised.

It is strange, that the British press simply do not report, at all on the contents of the PJ files. I suppose the reason could be British Police warned them not to, but..

Viv do you think that the government now looking into these super injuctions that they could chnaged or even lifted??

viv wrote:I read that the use of super injunctions where even there existence cannot be acknowledged are up this year to 11 from an average of about 5 or 6 per year previously.

One of the special weapons in the arsenal of Carter Ruck perhaps for clients who are devious enough to have some nasty secrets to keep the lid on, like Trafigura and Kate and Gerry McCann.

Now that parliament are looking more closely at these super injunctions, which hardly represent open justice, maybe we will find out whether Kate and Gerry got one of those. I would not be the least bit surprised.

It is strange, that the British press simply do not report, at all on the contents of the PJ files. I suppose the reason could be British Police warned them not to, but..

My source at the HoC claims not.

Justagran:
viv, it's not just the PJ files the media keep quiet about. This has been said before, but in any other case which is grabbing the public interest, the public are treated to stories from the neighbours, ex school friends, boy/girl friends from way back, the hairdresser who does Kates highlights, Gerrys golfing buddies, you name it, they would have all been queueing up to have their say, but there has been practically nothing of that. Same with their holiday companions. I just find it all so odd.

I think that may not be the case where there is a serious ongoing police investigation, otherwise the newspapers could find themselves in serious trouble. The sort of case you are talking about I think, is where, for example, some MP is found to have done a dirty deed that is not actually a criminal offence but the press are having a field day with him. The other situation is, the press are allowed to do some digging after a serious criminal trial has taken place because it cannot then be said they would be prejudicing that trial in any way. The Attorney General has not hesitated to take action against newspapers who interfere in a criminal case prior to its resolution. I think there may also be the issue of even more draconian prevention of newspapers reporting information about children, most certainly if there is a potential issue of sexual abuse, it just cannot be reported. There are court proceedings in UK concerning Madeleine, she was made a Ward and we may not know what newspapers are and are not allowed to publish in this case. But I certainly think it would exclude the Gaspar statements etc. I know people do not really accept this but the offical position is that she is a missing person, who may be alive, papers do have to be extremely careful what they say and not refer to any question of sexual abuse of a living child.


Lilly:
Viv do you think that the government now looking into these super injuctions that they could chnaged or even lifted??

The government has no power to lift an injunction that has been made by the courts and I think it is unlikely that they would divulge details of any injunction the McCanns may have got because all organs of the state have to uphold the McCanns human rights – to be considered innocent until proven guilty and protected from any adverse treatment at all.

When the courts are doing something the government does not like, you will occasionally get what is considered a meddlesome person such as Blunkett trying to tell judges what to do, but they do not take kindly to this. The way governments can and do change what judges do is to create new legislation to cure whatever is going on that they do not like. It seems wrong in principle to be granting injunctions the existence of which cannot even be reported, but I think the governments major concern is that Carter Ruck were seeking to prevent a newspaper from reporting what happens in parliament which is a freedom and a tradition going back hundreds of years, accepting that the public have a right to know what their elected members are dealing with in parliament.

Laffin:

My source at the HoC claims not.

See above, I think you are probably right about that. I think there will be a lot of concern to protect the McCanns whilst there is an ongoing investigation. But we can always hope that in some way, details of any injunction they have gained becomes public.

By the way, I saw your msg somewhere the other night, I do not pop off to the Red Sea until Monday. Just cannot wait

viv wrote:Justagran:
viv, it's not just the PJ files the media keep quiet about. This has been said before, but in any other case which is grabbing the public interest, the public are treated to stories from the neighbours, ex school friends, boy/girl friends from way back, the hairdresser who does Kates highlights, Gerrys golfing buddies, you name it, they would have all been queueing up to have their say, but there has been practically nothing of that. Same with their holiday companions. I just find it all so odd.

I think that may not be the case where there is a serious ongoing police investigation, otherwise the newspapers could find themselves in serious trouble. The sort of case you are talking about I think, is where, for example, some MP is found to have done a dirty deed that is not actually a criminal offence but the press are having a field day with him. The other situation is, the press are allowed to do some digging after a serious criminal trial has taken place because it cannot then be said they would be prejudicing that trial in any way. The Attorney General has not hesitated to take action against newspapers who interfere in a criminal case prior to its resolution. I think there may also be the issue of even more draconian prevention of newspapers reporting information about children, most certainly if there is a potential issue of sexual abuse, it just cannot be reported. There are court proceedings in UK concerning Madeleine, she was made a Ward and we may not know what newspapers are and are not allowed to publish in this case. But I certainly think it would exclude the Gaspar statements etc. I know people do not really accept this but the offical position is that she is a missing person, who may be alive, papers do have to be extremely careful what they say and not refer to any question of sexual abuse of a living child.


Lilly:
Viv do you think that the government now looking into these super injuctions that they could chnaged or even lifted??

The government has no power to lift an injunction that has been made by the courts and I think it is unlikely that they would divulge details of any injunction the McCanns may have got because all organs of the state have to uphold the McCanns human rights – to be considered innocent until proven guilty and protected from any adverse treatment at all.

When the courts are doing something the government does not like, you will occasionally get what is considered a meddlesome person such as Blunkett trying to tell judges what to do, but they do not take kindly to this. The way governments can and do change what judges do is to create new legislation to cure whatever is going on that they do not like. It seems wrong in principle to be granting injunctions the existence of which cannot even be reported, but I think the governments major concern is that Carter Ruck were seeking to prevent a newspaper from reporting what happens in parliament which is a freedom and a tradition going back hundreds of years, accepting that the public have a right to know what their elected members are dealing with in parliament.

Laffin:

My source at the HoC claims not.

See above, I think you are probably right about that. I think there will be a lot of concern to protect the McCanns whilst there is an ongoing investigation. But we can always hope that in some way, details of any injunction they have gained becomes public.

By the way, I saw your msg somewhere the other night, I do not pop off to the Red Sea until Monday. Just cannot wait

This "Face-book" case, splatterd all over the front pages of the tabloids this morning, I wonder at what time the guy was charged, is that when the "sub-justice" rules kick in or when he appears in court ?