The High Court injunction which the Attorney General sought to ban the BBC from reporting, is only applicable to the BBC. According to David Hencke and Vikram Dodd writing in the Grauniad:
"All news organisations are covered by the gag, but cannot learn terms of what they can and cannot report because the judge who granted the injunction insisted on its terms being secret between the BBC, Scotland Yard, and the attorney general. A spokesman for Lord Goldsmith said the injunction was gained to stop a broadcast which police feared could impede their inquiries, and added: "The terms of the injunction are confidential."
However, the judge has erred in law. It is a well established principle in law, that adequate notice must be given those affected for a law to have effect. The BBC has been given notice by the judge and in this case it is legally binding, and the BBC would be in contempt of court if it failed to abide by the decision. The judge cannot prevent all other news organisations from reporting the story if they cannot learn the terms of what they can and cannot report. The legal maxim "ignorance of the law is no excuse", only applies if the law is published. A secret law is no law at all.
The relevant authorities are Lim Chin Aik v R [1963] AC 160, [1963] 1 All ER 223, and Blackpool Corporation v Locker [1948] 1 KB 349, [1948] 1 All ER 85.
What is the point of these media giants paying huge sums of money to their lawyers when a blogger is prepared to give the best advice available free?
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
1 comment:
Very interesting post John, and I just loved the last little bit!
Post a Comment