This from Nick Robinson's (Not)Newslog. Give the man a banana from this banana republic for at least trying.
Strict limits
* Nick
* 2 Mar 07, 10:55 PM
It's been an interesting evening for lawyers - and a rather more frustrating one for journalists.
Lawyers representing the BBC and lawyers representing the Attorney General spent about two hours locked away at the Royal Courts of Justice this evening. The decision came about 21:00 - and that decision was an injunction, sought by the Attorney General, preventing the BBC from broadcasting an item it had planned to show tonight about the cash-for-honours investigation.
This will be baffling for the public, and I'm afraid I can't unbaffle many of you - there are strict limits on what we can say and report. But what we can say is that as far as we are aware, this is the first injunction that has been sought - and it is certainly the first successful one - in a long process of media reporting on this investigation.
A spokesman for the Attorney has said that the move was taken in response to a request from the Metropolitan Police, who were concerned that the disclosure of information contained in the story could have harmed their inquiry. The spokesman added that Lord Goldsmith - a member of the Cabinet - was acting independently of the Government in seeking the injunction.
Readers will know that there have been complaints from those involved in the investigation that there has been so much reporting - so much of what they refer to as speculation - during an ongoing police investigation. And while this injunction means that this particular news item cannot be broadcast, it's not yet clear what the implication is for any future broadcast.
PS: You may notice below that I've closed this post to comments. Sorry about that, but as I mentioned above, there are strict limits on what can be said.
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.
2 comments:
John, injunctions only apply to those named within the injunction: an injunction cannot prevent those not named in it from commenting. So far as I am aware, only the BBC were named in the injunction, so only they are prohibited from publishing what was to be the subject of their 10 o'clock broadcast. There would be nothing to prevent you, or any of us who might comment on your blog, from saying what we want on the matter. Whether we would wish to is another question, as, if it is the police who requested the AG to seek the injunction, they may have good reason for wishing to keep whatver it is under wraps for now in case it prejudices their enquiry (and any likely conviction - let's hope there are a few of those). Iain Dale may take another view when he wakes up in the US of course ....
Cato: I was just going to post on the issue you raised. The police did not seek the injunction, they have the power to order a media blackout. Usually, they seek the media's co-operation as it fosters better relations. The order came from Number 10, and the AG did Tony's bidding again. In the same way that they tried to get the SIS to back up the dodgy dossier, the police are expected to support the Number 10 line. As I understand it, the police were only an interested party to the proceedings.
Post a Comment