The Guardian gagged by Carter-Ruck

David Leigh
guardian.co.uk, Monday 12 October 2009 20.31 BST

The Guardian has been prevented from reporting parliamentary proceedings on legal grounds which appear to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights.

Today's published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found.

The Guardian is also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented – for the first time in memory – from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret.

The only fact the Guardian can report is that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck, who specialise in suing the media for clients, who include individuals or global corporations.

The Guardian has vowed urgently to go to court to overturn the gag on its reporting. The editor, Alan Rusbridger, said: "The media laws in this country increasingly place newspapers in a Kafkaesque world in which we cannot tell the public anything about information which is being suppressed, nor the proceedings which suppress it. It is doubly menacing when those restraints include the reporting of parliament itself."

The media lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC said Lord Denning ruled in the 1970s that "whatever comments are made in parliament" can be reported in newspapers without fear of contempt.

He said: "Four rebel MPs asked questions giving the identity of 'Colonel B', granted anonymity by a judge on grounds of 'national security'. The DPP threatened the press might be prosecuted for contempt, but most published."

The right to report parliament was the subject of many struggles in the 18th century, with the MP and journalist John Wilkes fighting every authority – up to the king – over the right to keep the public informed. After Wilkes's battle, wrote the historian Robert Hargreaves, "it gradually became accepted that the public had a constitutional right to know what their elected representatives were up to".
------
Guido Fawkes blog: Guardian Gagged from Reporting Parliament
Carter-Ruck to sue everyone
-----
Carter Ruck again: What defines a legal victory?

Oil company Trafigura’s media lawyers at Carter Ruck have been busy issuing libel writs defending the company against allegations relating to a major litigation that it settled last week.

The claim will be familiar. It stems from the fallout of what was one of the largest pollution disasters in recent history - the dumping of 400 tonnes of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast by an oil tanker, the Probo Koala.
-----
Peter Carter-Ruck: The man who invented the London libel industry
Carter-Ruck: Trafigura toxic dumping along the Ivory Coast broke EU regulations, 14 Sep 2006
Carter-Ruck folds

Carter-Ruck: The firm that aims to 'nip in the bud' hostile press coverage

Trafigura's lawyers have been seeking to carve out a niche in the field of corporate 'reputation management'

Carter-Ruck is, according to its own boasts, among the most aggressive firms of lawyers that can be hired by a corporation anxious to head off hostile media coverage. Recently, the firm has been seeking to carve out for itself a niche in the field of corporate "reputation management". This involves making use of the restrictive nature of British laws on libel and breach of confidence, and working in close concert with firms of public relations lobbyists.

The firm does not come cheap, with partners believed to charge more than £450 an hour for its services. Carter-Ruck has also been prominent, however, among firms developing the much-criticised "conditional fee agreements" as a libel weapon. Under these no-win, no-fee rules, critics allege that a client with no money can hold media organisations to ransom. If it wins a court case, the firm can charge up to double fees to the newspaper or broadcaster. But if the media organisation successfully defends itself, it will find it hard to recover its own legal costs.

The firm has successfully acted for victims of media unfairness, winning unprecedented damages for the McCann family, for example, when tabloids printed stories falsely implying that they were to blame for their daughter Madeleine's disappearance in Portugal.

In the case of Trafigura, the Carter-Ruck partner Adam Tudor has been co-ordinating legal moves with Neil Cameron of Bell Pottinger, the firm of lobbyists founded by Tim Bell, once Margaret Thatcher's favourite PR man. They have brought legal actions, complaints or threats against foreign media organisations, including the Dutch paper Volkskrant and the Norwegian state TV channel NRK. They also launched a libel suit against Martyn Day, the senior partner of the law firm which brought a class action for compensation on behalf of 30,000 Africans who say they have been made ill by Trafigura's toxic waste.

Another libel case, which is still live, was launched against the BBC after a Newsnight programme on the toxic waste disaster in Ivory Coast in 2006.

On its website, Carter-Ruck promises that it can often "nip in the bud" the prospect of adverse media coverage by going over the heads of reporters to newspaper lawyers and making threats. It boasts of being able to obtain injunctions prohibiting publication of information "often in a matter of hours". It claims wide experience of working alongside PR agencies on behalf of blue-chip corporations "facing sustained and hostile media interest".

-----
Source: The Guardian
tce Today: Trafigura story breaks (article whooshed)

Peter Bottomley tells MPs he is reporting the law firm after it sought to prevent the Guardian reporting a question tabled in the Commons

Deborah Summers, politics editor guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 14 October 2009 14.06 BST

The law firm at the centre of the an unprecedented attempt by a British oil trading firm to prevent the Guardian reporting parliamentary proceedings is to be reported to the Law Society, it emerged today.

Gordon Brown described the case as "unfortunate" when he was quizzed about the matter during prime minister's questions in the Commons today.

And he said the justice secretary, Jack Straw, had spoken to the parties concerned to try to resolve the issue.

Brown spoke after Conservative Peter Bottomley told MPs he was reporting Carter-Ruck, the law firm that acted on behalf of Trafigura, to the Law Society, saying that no lawyers should be able to inhibit the reporting of parliament.

"I will be seeking their advice on whether it is proper for any lawyer to purport or intend to inhibit the reporting of parliament," Bottomley told the Guardian.

"It is the job of the press to make aware to all what is known by a few. Any court action which inhibits that should be approved at a very high level, with full justifications, and in normal circumstances, should not be made in secret."

Carter-Ruck was accused of infringing the supremacy of parliament yesterday after it insisted that an injunction obtained against the Guardian prevented the paper from reporting a question tabled on Monday by the Labour MP Paul Farrelly.

Farrelly's question was about the implications for press freedom of an order obtained by Trafigura preventing the Guardian and other media from publishing the contents of a report related to the dumping of toxic waste in Ivory Coast.

In yesterday's edition of the paper, the Guardian was prevented from identifying Farrelly, reporting the nature of his question, where the question could be found, which company had sought the gag, or even which order was constraining its coverage.

But numerous users of the social networking site Twitter posted details of Farrelly's question and by yesterday morning, the full text had been published on two prominent blogs as well as in the magazine Private Eye.

Carter-Ruck withdrew its gagging attempt by lunchtime, shortly before a 2pm high court hearing at which the Guardian was about to challenge its stance, with the backing of other national newspapers.

Yesterday Carter-Ruck, whose partner Adam Tudor has been representing Trafigura, issued a press release conceding: "The order would indeed have prevented the Guardian from reporting on the parliamentary question which had been tabled for later this week." But the firm said the Guardian's reporting on the issue had been "highly misleading".

The firm added: "There is no question of Trafigura seeking to gag the media from reporting parliamentary proceedings, and the parties have now agreed to an amendment to the existing order so as to reflect that."

Carter-Ruck has been contacted for comment.
-----
Source: The Guardian

Carter-Ruck in new move to stop debate in parliament

Over the last few days an alleged super-injunction against a national newspaper has caused quite a media stir, and even made its way onto the agenda of prime minister's questions.

By Sarah Garrod.

'Let's gag Carter-Ruck'

Yesterday a small number of protestors gathered outside the law firm who issued the super-injunction, and inthenews.co.uk joined them to see what all the fuss was about.

On Tuesday an order made by law firm Carter-Ruck temporarily stopped the Guardian reporting details of an MP's parliamentary question. The libel lawyers were believed to have imposed the ban after a Labour MP, Paul Farrelly, asked a question relating to Trafigura, an oil company, and Ivory Coast toxic waste. The issue was with the publication of the Minton report into the waste issue, on which an injunction still remains.

A media frenzy began over whether an injunction could be served on parliamentary proceedings, which are normally subject to absolute privilege, the highest form of protection available to a journalist.

But the antiquated nature of Britain's libel laws was exposed when the details of the injunction were widely reported on micro-blogging site Twitter, as well as on popular blogs.

Richard Wilson, a writer from London who helped organise the protest, published details of the Carter-Ruck injunction online. He toldinthenews.co.uk at yesterday's 'silent' protest: "I was just outraged when I heard through Twitter that Carter-Ruck had tried to gag the Guardian from reporting what was going on in parliament for the first time I think in 200 or 300 years.

"For me it fits into a much wider pattern of attacks on freedom of speech in the country. I've written two books and been threatened with libel twice.

"I wasn't sure what the legal situation was when I posted up the parliamentary question up on Twitter which helped to fuel the frenzy. I may be in contempt of court but I think that sometimes you have to put something on the line because we didn't get these democratic freedoms for free and I think sometimes some people need to take a stand to keep hold of them."

Mr Farrelly questioned the report in parliament, saying later on Tuesday: "Today the Guardian reported that it had been prevented from reporting a written question tabled by a Member of Parliament. This morning I telephoned The Guardian to ask whether that MP was myself.

"The question was printed on the order paper yesterday and relates to the activities of Trafigura, an international oil trader at the centre of a controversy concerning toxic waste dumping on the Ivory Coast.

"The question also relates to the role of its solicitors, Carter-Ruck. I understand that yesterday Carter-Ruck, quite astonishingly, warned the Guardian of legal action if the newspaper reported my question. In view of the seriousness of this, Mr Speaker, will you accept representations from me over this matter and consider whether Carter-Ruck's behaviour constitutes potential contempt of parliament?"

On Wednesday the Guardian said that Trafigura had dropped its bid to gag the newspaper. It reported that Carter-Ruck was accused of "infringing the supremacy of parliament after it insisted that an injunction obtained against the Guardian prevented the paper from reporting a question tabled on Monday by the Labour MP Paul Farrelly".

Gordon Brown said the use of the super-injunction was "an unfortunate area of the law". And also on Wednesday the law firm itself issued a statement saying: "Following comments in parliament today and widespread media misreporting of this matter, Carter-Ruck (on Trafigura's and its own behalf) has today written to the speaker of the House of Commons."

The letter said that since September 11th 2009 an order had been placed against the Guardian and persons unknown. Carter-Ruck said it should be stressed that the Guardian had consented to the order remaining in place pending resolution of the matter. The law firm also reiterated that nothing had prevented the paper from publishing the proceedings of parliament, which would mean the firm had committed contempt of parliament.

However, a group of demonstrators yesterday took to the streets outside Carter-Ruck to protest against the 'Guardian Gag'. They wore black gags over their mouths, saying "We won't be breaking the law, they, and the people they represent are."

The group organised the demonstration through a 'Tweetvite' entitled 'Let's Gag Carter-Ruck'. Twitter has been instrumental in the whole process, with Mr Farrelly's question posted on the site numerous times after the Guardian reported the super-injunction.

Anonymous1667 (pictured) added: "As an individual obviously I support these guys and what they do but as a member of anonymous, who I am not a spokesperson for, the protest group, we have had a run-in with Carter-Ruck before.

"With the libel laws the way they are, when a large corporation like Trafigura is accused of a very serious crime and just because an internal document is leaked to the press that a super-gag is placed on the press so that they cannot continue to investigate the dealings of Trafigura; well, the libel laws in this country are skewed.

"They are attacking free press.

"I hope that parliament have a thorough investigation."

Source: Inthenewsnow
-----


David Leigh - The Guardian

Carter-Ruck in new move to stop debate in parliament

The law firm Carter-Ruck has made a fresh move that could stop an MPs' debate next week by claiming a controversial injunction it has obtained is "sub judice".

The move follows the revelation of the existence of a secret "super-injunction" obtained by the firm on behalf of the London-based oil traders Trafigura.

The injunction not only bans disclosure of a confidential report on Trafigura and toxic waste, but also banned disclosure of the injunction's very existence, until it was revealed by an MP this week under parliamentary privilege.

Carter-Ruck partner Adam Tudor today sent a letter to the Speaker, John Bercow, and also circulated it to every single MP and peer, saying they believed the case was "sub judice".

If correct, it would mean that, under Westminster rules to prevent clashes between parliament and the courts, a debate planned for next Wednesday could not go ahead.

Earlier this week, the Labour MP Paul Farrelly said Carter-Ruck might be in contempt of parliament for seeking to stop the Guardian reporting questions he had put down on the order paper revealing the existence of the "super-injunction".

The Conservative MP Peter Bottomley went on to tell Gordon Brown at prime minister's questions that he would report Carter-Ruck to the Law Society for obtaining an injunction that purported to ban parliamentary reporting.

Carter-Ruck said in a letter and press release that, although the Speaker had discretion over sub judice questions, "we believe the proceedings to have been and to remain 'active' within the definition of House Resolution ... of 15 November 2001 in that arrangements have been made for the hearing of an application before the Court".

Bercow had told MPs the previous day: "It is not sub judice under the house's rules ... There is no question of our own proceedings being in any way inhibited."

Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat MP who secured next week's debate, said: "I read with interest the letter from Carter-Ruck. I do not think that sub judice is involved here and I do not think that MPs will be deterred from discussing this case in the debate without a ruling from the Speaker, which he has not as yet indicated any likelihood of providing."

Farrelly said: "Carter-Ruck's manoeuvres this week, were it not so serious, would be tantamount to high farce. It is important MPs should not be prevented from going ahead with debates next week."

The prominent media lawyer Mark Stephens said: "This sort of assault on democratic privileges is what you would expect to see in a banana republic."