---

English Libel Law (Parliamentary Proceedings)

First, I must declare an interest as a barrister. I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on securing this debate. He has been proactive on this issue over a number of years and many hon. Members admire his effort and tenacity. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) touched on the detail of the Trafigura saga. It was an appalling set of circumstances. That said, however reprehensible Trafigura's actions, it had every right to come to our courts to seek a remedy and every right to instruct a law firm. The right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) went over the top in criticising Messrs. Carter-Ruck for taking the case. Trafigura had every right to come to our courts and Carter-Ruck had every right to use our procedures. Carter-Ruck should have been more careful in what it said in its correspondence. For example, its letter to Mr. Speaker of 14 October said:""In response we pointed out that the threatened publications would breach the terms of the injunction Order and indeed that, absent a variation to the Orders, would place The Guardian in contempt of Court. That being the case, we sought The Guardian's confirmation that they would not so publish."" Carter-Ruck should have included the caveat that nothing that the court had said could prevent the reporting of parliamentary proceedings. It was a mistake not to do so. In the letter that The Guardian wrote to Mr. Speaker the following day, Mr. Rusbridger pointed out:""Carter-Ruck could have replied to the effect that they had no intention to gag parliamentary reporting and that they had no objection to us doing so.""Instead, their letter unequivocally asserted that the Guardian would be in contempt of Court and sought an immediate undertaking that we would not publish."" There was certainly an error on the part of Carter-Ruck and it is a great pity that the caveat was not in the letter. Carter-Ruck's letter to the legal department of The Guardian on 12 October, which discussed the public domain and anonymity, stated:""It is not obvious to us that the reporting of this written question on the Parliament website places the existence of the injunction in the public domain. That is a matter which we wish to consider and take instructions on."" Carter-Ruck could have rung up any one of about 8,000 barristers who would have given it the answer. I find that somewhat bizarre. I turn to Mr. Justice Maddison's injunction and the super-injunction. As a number of hon. Members have said, at the stage of the initial injunction, none of the parties imagined that the publishing of parliamentary proceedings would arise. It would be helpful if the Lord Chief Justice spoke to the judge in question. There is now a much more open relationship between Parliament and the judiciary. Perhaps the Lord Chief Justice could find out what the judge's reaction would have been had one of the parties raised what would have happened if the terms of the injunction and its contents were discussed in Parliament or were the subject of a parliamentary question. Perhaps the Minister could facilitate such a discussion. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West that super-injunctions should be used only as the last resort. They are being used far too frequently. The Lord Chief Justice should issue tighter guidelines on super-injunctions. The qualification in Mr. Justice Maddison's original injunction that resulted in the so-called super-injunction is pretty far reaching. Page 3 of the order makes it clear that there would be draconian consequences for anyone involved in proceedings who let the identity of the applicant—Trafigura—be known to anyone. Such far-reaching injunctions should be used only in rare cases. I have not seen the transcript of evidence. The order states:""Upon it appearing to the Court (i) that the action is one likely to attract publicity,"—" for goodness' sake, it was always going to attract publicity. It continues:""(ii) that publicity revealing the identity of the Applicants is likely unfairly to damage the interests of the Applicants"." I would have thought that in all such cases publicity is bound to damage the interests of the applicants. They go to court in the first place to prevent something from being published because they are concerned about previous actions and events with which they were involved. What is the Minister's view of super-injunctions? Can the Lord Chief Justice issue tougher guidelines to the judiciary on the use of such injunctions before we consider passing legislation?