Top judge attacks injunction breaking politicians - Telegraph.co.uk

A MP and a peer have both now used historic parliamentary protection to disclose details of a gagging order despite the courts banning publication.

But in a thinly veiled criticism of the actions Lord Judge yesterday told media at a press conference: "It is, of course, wonderful for you if a Member of Parliament stands up in Parliament and says something which in effect means an order of the court on anonymity is breached.

"But you do need to think, do you not, whether it's a very good idea for our law makers to be flouting a court order just because they disagree with a court order or for that matter because they disagree with the law of privacy which Parliament has created.

"It's a very serious issue in my view."

Lord Judge revealed he is to now meet with the speakers of both the House of Commons and House of Lords to discuss the issue.

In a related move, the country's second most senior judge raised the prospect that journalists who report such comments could be in contempt of court.

Reports parliamentary proceedings are protected by "qualified privilege" under laws dating back to 1840.

But Lord Neuberger, the Master of the Rolls who chaired the year-long inquiry in to injunctions, said the law surrounding it was "astonishingly unclear" and "very unsatisfactory".

The report of his committee yesterday warned there was "no judicial decision" on whether a report of material "which intentionally had the effect of frustrating a court order would be in good faith and without malice", and whether it would therefore be covered by parliamentary privilege.

It added that where reporting did not attract privilege "it is unclear whether it would be protected at common law from contempt proceedings if it breached a court order."

Details of an injunctions involving Sir Fred made front page news after it was first raised in the Commons by the MP John Hemming and then in the House of Lords by Lord Stoneham.

Mr Hemming said yesterday: "This attempt to gag the media in discussing the proceedings in Parliament is, in my view, a retrograde step. "

John Whittingdale, chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee said legislation should be considered "urgently" to ensure the media could report comments made in Parliament.

He added: "At the end of the day, MPs are there to safeguard the public interest and if there is a clear public interest, they should be able to speak about that issue."

However Chuka Umunna, the Labour MP, said: "I do not think it is desirable or healthy for parliamentarians to abuse parliamentary privilege to break court injunctions."

The review follows growing concern that the famous and wealthy are increasingly using injunctions to protect against embarrassing stories, including super injunctions, where even the existence of an order cannot be publicised.

The committee's report accepted that injunctions had "sometimes been more widely used than is strictly necessary" and that even it could not be certain that some existed that it was not aware of.

It added there were "justifiable concerns" that form of "permanent secret justice" had begun to creep in to the UK prior to last year.

Under new rules for judges, members of the media who would be subject of an injunction would be told beforehand and given access to hearings to contest them.

In new guidance, courts will be told super-injunctions and other injunctions "can only be granted when they are strictly necessary".

Prime Minister David Cameron's official spokesman said the Government would consider Lord Neuberger's report before deciding whether to legislate on privacy issues.

But it emerged on Thursday that Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke and Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt have decided there is no need for a Privacy Act.