1-14 of 14 results for subject:Injunctions
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.242 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.003 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Injunctions
- We searched for
- subject_t:Injunctions OR subject_ses:91670
Member
X
Lord Bach
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
More
Bach, Lord (14)
Primary member
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 155, which is in the same terms as it was in Committee. I am extremely grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Prashar, and of course to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, for putting their names to this...
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 155, which is in the same terms as it was in Committee. I am extremely grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Prashar, and of course to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, for putting their names to this...
Member
Lord Bach
(Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Legislation
Illegal Migration Bill 2022-23
Subjects
Appeals; Asylum; Detainees; Deportation; Civil proceedings; Human rights; Legal aid scheme; Immigration controls; Undocumented migrants; Judicial review; European Court of Human Rights; Injunctions; Ministerial powers; Safety; English Channel; People smuggling
Date
3 July 2023
Reference
831 cc1092-4
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
Tabled by
Lord Bach
155: After Clause 55, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to make legal aid available to certain detained persons
(1) The Lord Chancellor must secure that civil legal services in relation to—
(a) a suspensive claim within the meaning of section 37(2) of this Act, and
(b) any of the matters set...
Tabled by
Lord Bach
155: After Clause 55, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to make legal aid available to certain detained persons
(1) The Lord Chancellor must secure that civil legal services in relation to—
(a) a suspensive claim within the meaning of section 37(2) of this Act, and
(b) any of the matters set...
Member
Lord Bach
(Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Legislation
Illegal Migration Bill 2022-23
Subjects
Appeals; Asylum; Detainees; Deportation; Civil proceedings; Human rights; Legal aid scheme; Immigration controls; Undocumented migrants; Judicial review; European Court of Human Rights; Injunctions; Ministerial powers; Safety; English Channel; People smuggling
Date
3 July 2023
Reference
831 c1098
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, as far as Amendment 155 is concerned, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this fairly short debate. The person who took much the longest was me, and I am not going to make any apology for that because this is an important subject in the...
My Lords, as far as Amendment 155 is concerned, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this fairly short debate. The person who took much the longest was me, and I am not going to make any apology for that because this is an important subject in the...
Member
Lord Bach
(Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Legislation
Illegal Migration Bill 2022-23
Subjects
Appeals; Asylum; Detainees; Deportation; Civil proceedings; Human rights; Legal aid scheme; Immigration controls; Undocumented migrants; Judicial review; European Court of Human Rights; Injunctions; Ministerial powers; Safety; English Channel; People smuggling
Date
3 July 2023
Reference
831 cc1099-1100
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, it is a great privilege to be opening today’s debate on Her Majesty’s gracious Speech, not least since it is usually the lot of Ministry of Justice Ministers to close this debate. Today, we discuss the Government’s proposals on home affairs, justice and constitutional affairs for the final...
My Lords, it is a great privilege to be opening today’s debate on Her Majesty’s gracious Speech, not least since it is usually the lot of Ministry of Justice Ministers to close this debate. Today, we discuss the Government’s proposals on home affairs, justice and constitutional affairs for the final...
Member
Lord Bach
(Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Subjects
Disciplinary proceedings; Children; Databases; Anti-social behaviour; Corruption; Airguns; Civil service; DNA; Immobilisation of vehicles; House of Lords; Judiciary; Domestic abuse; Hereditary peers; Insurance; Injunctions; Organised crime; Prisons; Public expenditure; Mobile phones; Parliamentary scrutiny; Public service; Peers; Treaties; Young people; Reform; Anti-social behaviour orders; Parenting orders
Date
23 November 2009
Reference
715 c138-43
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
Lords debate on Queen's speech (third day) on home, legal and constitutional affairs.
Lords debate on Queen's speech (third day) on home, legal and constitutional affairs.
Lead member
Lord Bach
Answering member
Baroness Neville-Jones
Department
Home Office; Ministry of Justice
Type
Queen's speech debates
Procedure
Addresses to the Crown
Subjects
Disciplinary proceedings; Children; Databases; Anti-social behaviour; Corruption; Airguns; Civil service; DNA; Immobilisation of vehicles; House of Lords; Judiciary; Domestic abuse; Hereditary peers; Insurance; Injunctions; Organised crime; Prisons; Public expenditure; Mobile phones; Parliamentary scrutiny; Public service; Peers; Treaties; Young people; Reform; Anti-social behaviour orders; Parenting orders
Date
23 November 2009
Reference
715 c138-51,160-246
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, the ability to report proceedings in Parliament remains unaffected by recent events. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said yesterday in another place: ""The Justice Secretary has talked to the parties concerned and is looking into this issue"."
He went on to say that he hoped that, ""progress can be made … to clear up what is an unfortunate area of the law".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/10/09; col. 294.]"
My Lords, the ability to report proceedings in Parliament remains unaffected by recent events. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said yesterday in another place: ""The Justice Secretary has talked to the parties concerned and is looking into this issue"."
He went on to say that he hoped that, ""progress can be made … to clear up what is an unfortunate area of the law".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/10/09; col. 294.]"
Answered by
Lord Bach
(Labour)
Type
Oral answers to questions
Subjects
Injunctions; Newspaper press; Parliamentary reporting
Date
15 October 2009
Reference
713 c324
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
We are looking at all the matters that the noble Lord raises. Of course, the courts have always had the right to restrain publication that would frustrate the very purpose of their orders, but it seems that they have used that power more during the past few years than previously. The Government will not seek to intervene in any way in what a newspaper or magazine chooses to publish. The press must abide by the law just as we all must. However, the issues that the noble Lord raises are very live ones in the Ministry of Justice. My right honourable friend the Justice Secretary is seeing Mr Speaker this afternoon, a senior official from my department is meeting the lawyers of the major newspapers today and the judiciary is being consulted.
We are looking at all the matters that the noble Lord raises. Of course, the courts have always had the right to restrain publication that would frustrate the very purpose of their orders, but it seems that they have used that power more during the past few years than previously. The Government will not seek to intervene in any way in what a newspaper or magazine chooses to publish. The press must abide by the law just as we all must. However, the issues that the noble Lord raises are very live ones in the Ministry of Justice. My right honourable friend the Justice Secretary is seeing Mr Speaker this afternoon, a senior official from my department is meeting the lawyers of the major newspapers today and the judiciary is being consulted.
Answered by
Lord Bach
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Taverne
(Liberal Democrat)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, I welcome the reaction of all parties, the Prime Minister and the Government, to the questions that arose yesterday out of Mr Paul Farrelly’s Question to the Commons. However, the threat still exists. These so-called super-injunctions are becoming more common and can be very oppressive. Will the Government take this opportunity to make it absolutely clear that similar actions to those of Carter-Ruck would be a clear breach of Article IX of the 1688 Bill of Rights, which states that, ""the Freedom of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parliament"?"
Will the Government also take note of the remarks made yesterday by Lord Justice Laws on the law of libel and set up an urgent review of whether what he called the delicate balance between the right of reputation and the right to free expression has not perhaps tilted too far in favour of the former? Will they also look at whether so-called libel tourism should not be restrained?
Subjects
Injunctions; Newspaper press; Parliamentary reporting
Date
15 October 2009
Reference
713 c324-5
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
There are some important considerations around the law of defamation and libel at present, particularly in relation to costs. We are aware that the costs associated with defamation proceedings have what has been described as a chilling effect, particularly where the impact of success fees under conditional fee agreements is taken into account. The question of what might properly be done to address cost issues in relation to defamation remains under consideration by the Government. These issues, as the noble Lord will know better than most, form part of the important consideration that Lord Justice Jackson is making on costs in civil proceedings generally. His final report is expected at the end of the year and will be considered with interest by all parties.
There are some important considerations around the law of defamation and libel at present, particularly in relation to costs. We are aware that the costs associated with defamation proceedings have what has been described as a chilling effect, particularly where the impact of success fees under conditional fee agreements is taken into account. The question of what might properly be done to address cost issues in relation to defamation remains under consideration by the Government. These issues, as the noble Lord will know better than most, form part of the important consideration that Lord Justice Jackson is making on costs in civil proceedings generally. His final report is expected at the end of the year and will be considered with interest by all parties.
Answered by
Lord Bach
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Goodhart
(Liberal Democrat)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, will the Government consider looking more thoroughly at the libel laws? At present, they seem to be making the United Kingdom, particularly the English courts, a centre for worldwide applications to secure substantial damages by people who think that they have been libelled. Should we not try to get rid of that?
Subjects
Injunctions; Newspaper press; Parliamentary reporting
Date
15 October 2009
Reference
713 c326
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
There is absolute privilege; I am hardly surprised that the noble Lord is correct about that. Proceedings in Parliament are subject to the absolute privilege accorded by Article IX of the Bill of Rights. That article provides that proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court. As I understand it, that means that we in this House and those in another place receive absolute protection from court proceedings for things done while engaged in parliamentary duties. There is of course the principle of qualified privilege as well, which means that in the reporting of proceedings material can be produced provided that it is fairly reported. In particular, reports that were motivated by malice would not be protected by the privilege.
There is absolute privilege; I am hardly surprised that the noble Lord is correct about that. Proceedings in Parliament are subject to the absolute privilege accorded by Article IX of the Bill of Rights. That article provides that proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court. As I understand it, that means that we in this House and those in another place receive absolute protection from court proceedings for things done while engaged in parliamentary duties. There is of course the principle of qualified privilege as well, which means that in the reporting of proceedings material can be produced provided that it is fairly reported. In particular, reports that were motivated by malice would not be protected by the privilege.
Answered by
Lord Bach
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Campbell of Alloway
(Conservative)
Type
Oral answers to questions
Is there not an absolute privilege for the press to report proceedings in Parliament, so long as they do not comment on them?
Subjects
Injunctions; Newspaper press; Parliamentary reporting
Date
15 October 2009
Reference
713 c325-6
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My noble friend makes an excellent point, which will win a lot of support around the House. I very much suspect that my right honourable friend will make that point to the newspapers in the same way as he makes his other points.
My noble friend makes an excellent point, which will win a lot of support around the House. I very much suspect that my right honourable friend will make that point to the newspapers in the same way as he makes his other points.
Answered by
Lord Bach
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Howarth of Newport
(Labour)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, will my noble friend take this opportunity not only to assure newspaper editors that they will have a continuing right to report proceedings in Parliament but to put it to them that they have a responsibility to extend their typical coverage of Parliament beyond what the sketch writers choose to describe or the latest story of political embarrassment? After all, how are we to have an informed and responsible democracy if the print media fail to mediate the proceedings of Parliament in a reasonably broad, balanced and serious way?
Subjects
Injunctions; Newspaper press; Parliamentary reporting
Date
15 October 2009
Reference
713 c325
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
The only answer that I will give to the noble Lord is that I look forward to seeing him at the opening of the Supreme Court tomorrow.
The only answer that I will give to the noble Lord is that I look forward to seeing him at the opening of the Supreme Court tomorrow.
Answered by
Lord Bach
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord McNally
(Liberal Democrat)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, is it not ironic that tomorrow we celebrate the opening of the Supreme Court, which underlines the separation of powers? Is it not time to remind the judiciary that the separation of powers is a two-way street and that judges should not be lured into imposing injunctions that impinge on parliamentary privilege? The letter sent by Carter-Ruck to Mr Speaker is far from penitent. Would this matter not be settled far more quickly if Mr Speaker summoned Carter-Ruck to the Bar of the House?
Subjects
Injunctions; Newspaper press; Parliamentary reporting
Date
15 October 2009
Reference
713 c325
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
That is a very big question, which I am not prepared to answer.
That is a very big question, which I am not prepared to answer.
Answered by
Lord Bach
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
(Labour)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, further to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Howarth about the responsibility of reporting proceedings of this Parliament and, indeed, other matters accurately, does my noble friend agree that the current Press Complaints Commission is toothless and useless? Would he consider legislation to replace it with a statutory body?
Subjects
Injunctions; Newspaper press; Parliamentary reporting
Date
15 October 2009
Reference
713 c326
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to preserve the right of newspapers to report proceedings in Parliament.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to preserve the right of newspapers to report proceedings in Parliament.
Asked by
Lord Taverne
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Lord Bach
(Labour)
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
Procedure
Topical questions (HL)
For answer on
15 October 2009
Answered on
15 October 2009
My Lords, the ability to report proceedings in Parliament remains unaffected by recent events. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said yesterday in another place: ""The Justice Secretary has talked to the parties concerned and is looking into this issue"."
He went on to say that he hoped that, ""progress can be made … to clear up what is an unfortunate area of the law".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/10/09; col. 294.]"
Subjects
Injunctions; Newspaper press; Parliamentary reporting
Date
15 October 2009
Reference
713 c324
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
Whether they could have prevented the publication of photographs allegedly showing the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by coalition forces. [HL 2764].
Whether they could have prevented the publication of photographs allegedly showing the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by coalition forces. [HL 2764].
Asked by
Lord Palmer
(Crossbench)
Answered by
Lord Bach
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
For answer on
23 June 2004
Answered on
23 June 2004
Subjects
Abuse; Detainees; Armed forces; Iraq; Inhuman treatment; Injunctions; Newspaper press; Photographs; Prisoners of war; Daily Mirror
Date
23 June 2004
Reference
HL 2764; 662 c125WA
House
House of Lords