Chinese lawyer Gao Zhisheng was named the winner of the Bindmans Law and Campaigning Award at tonight’s Index on Censorship’s Freedom of Expression awards, sponsored by SAGE.
Gao Zhisheng was unable to attend and his wife, Geng He, accepted the award on his behalf, via video. (more…)
The next evolutionary stage of the court injunction has arrived: they now come “hyper” sized apparently.
John Hemming MP has introduced us to the idea — a week after using his parliamentary privilege to reveal the existence of a super injunction involving banker Fred Goodwin. You can read the (long-winded) transcript of the adjournment debate on the Bill of Rights at Westminster Hall in full here.
“I will come to what I call hyper-injunctions. One of the freedom of speech issues is that media organisations are generally commercial organisations, and there gets to be a point at which it is not worth their while trying to challenge the system and to get information out.
“With that, we return to the article nine issue [Bill of Rights] because our freedom of speech in the House is obviously on behalf of the citizens. We need to know of grievances so that we can raise them and talk about them publicly, so that the citizens of the UK can know.
“If it costs £20,000 or £30,000 in legal fees to write an article, in most circumstances a media organisation will just give up. The freedom of speech is basically sold down the river, because of the costs of the legal processes.”
Hemming described a case concerning the risk of toxic material in paint for drinking water tanks, in which a “hyper injunction” banned an individual from talking to an MP:
“There is a lot of stuff in that. It goes beyond a super-injunction; it is what I would call a hyper-injunction. It is an injunction in a case where someone is not even allowed to refer to the existence of these proceedings. There is the desire not to have the matter mentioned to Members of Parliament. There is also the interesting reference where it says ‘with the exception of lawyers or legal advisors instructed for the purpose.'”
He continued:
“Parliament is here to protect citizens of the UK, not MPs. The individual who was trussed up by that secret hyper-injunction needs protecting. We all need protecting from water that people are being told to drink without being warned that there are potentially toxins in it. That causes me great concern. This is about protecting people, not about using money and wealth to get legal processes to gag people. There is a way round these issues, but it requires Parliament to stand up for the people and for people’s right to communicate with Members of Parliament.”
Subsequently, Henry Fox discussed the legal issues at play on the Inforrm blog, looking at “the ability of MPs to disclose confidential information in Parliament and the ability of the media to report on these disclosures in order to evade liability for contempt of court”.
“The media controversy that surrounds injunctions is likely to continue and it is thus possible to foresee ‘media-friendly’ MPs attempting to circumvent the secrecy of injunctions on a more regular basis. It may well be that Parliament will have to reconsider some of the measures it considered in 1999 to avoid any interference with the administration of justice.”
As reported on this blog last week, Gill Phillips, the Guardian’s legal editorial director, recently flagged up the main developments in the field. But for any real progress in the super injunction debate, as David Heath concluded in the Westminster Hall debate, “we must wait and see what the Master of Rolls has to say on the subject when he-or, rather, his committee-reports.” Publication is expected around Easter.
Dear friends,
Yesterday the UK Justice Secretary laid out his plans for the draft defamation bill in the House of Commons. You can read it here. The Deputy Prime Minister, a strong supporter, also sets out his vision for the bill here.
The publication of the draft legislation was the culmination of a campaign Index on Censorship has led for the last 18 months to reform England’s archaic libel laws. The Free Speech Is Not For Sale report co-written by Index on Censorship and English PEN set the framework for a national debate about free expression and reputation. With a third partner, Sense About Science, we signed up 55,000 people, predominantly from the UK and USA, to join our campaign.
When our campaign began no political party in Britain had committed to wholesale reform of these laws since 1945; at the last general election each of the main political parties had done so. Over the past nine months, the coalition government took forward our suggestions. We are now working to improve the bill ahead of its passage through parliament over the next year.
As John Kampfner, our CEO, outlined in today’s Financial Times, English law had been used by the powerful to chill the free speech of NGOs, academics and other citizens around the world. The proposed changes go a considerable way to addressing the imbalance. This will be the first time in a generation that UK libel laws have been looked at anew – and we are confident that it will make a significant difference to free expression across the globe.
We wouldn’t be here without your support.
Thank you.
Jonathan Dimbleby,
Chairman,
Index on Censorship
Interesting news ahead of a Court of Appeal hearing on security for costs in the Hardeep Singh case. In October High Court judge Lady Justice Smith granted Indian national Sant Baba Jeet Singh ji Maharaj the right to appeal in his libel case against journalist Hardeep Singh.
Ahead of the hearing, scheduled for tomorrow, Jeet Singh’s solicitors Ford & Warren wrote to the Court of Appeal to inform it that they are now in the process of making an application to come off the court record as acting for Jeet Singh.
The case centres on an article that Singh wrote in August 2007 for the Sikh Times, a British newspaper, in which he claimed that Jeet Singh was an “accused Cult leader” whose teachings were not in line with mainstream Sikh doctrine. The article also connected his followers with conflict in UK temples. The claimant — a self proclaimed “Holy Man” — has never visited the United Kingdom.
In May 2010 a High Court judge threw out the case brought against freelance British journalist Hardeep Singh. Mr Justice Eady ruled for a permanent stay with no right to appeal. Eady’s judgment held that secular courts should not make a judgment on a religious dispute.
The claiment’s application for appeal was granted on the limited basis that there are arguable issues in Singh’s article that do not tread on the forbidden area of doctrinal dispute.