Trafigura-Carter-Rucked

Last night at about 8:30, the Guardian's website published this article by one of  its star investigative reporters, David Leigh.

Leigh's piece contained this.

Today's published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found.

The Guardian is also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented – for the first time in memory – from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret.

The only fact the Guardian can report is that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck who specialise in suing the media for clients, who include individuals or global corporations.

By the time the Rambler went to bed, the internet was glowing with this story. Indeed within a couple of hours of the Guardian's publication on of my tweeters had sent me a link to  the Order Paper that Carter-Ruck had injuncted.

It turned out to this question put down by Labour M.P. Paul Farrelly  to the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw.

"To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura.

It was clear what the original Guardian article was about, but less clear why Carter Ruck had acted to prevent its publication.

This morning my Tweetdeck was full of the Trafigura story. Hashtag #carterruck, #trafigura, or #wikileaks, and not only were you provided with Farrelly's question, which in itself would have made Carter-Ruck's application for relief more difficult, but the full text of the damning "Minton Report on Wikileaks.

I'm  sure  Carter-Ruck had foreseen  the internet response to their gagging order and the effect of that on their inter- partes application before the court this afternoon. To ask the court to grant further injunctive relief when the information they want kept secret was already in the very-public domain, would have been a hard ask.

Not surprisingly Carter-Ruck withdrew its opposition to the Guardian's application to publish. You can read Leigh's report here . Trafiguras' behaviour may have had  one large unforeseen result for them. The injunction of the "Minton Report" on the dumping of the toxic waste is now well and truly published. You can see it, and its devastating conclusions here.

It is  important not to forget the wickedly dishonest  behaviour of Trafigura in dumping the toxic waste on the Ivory Coast resulting in so much foreseeable suffering.

Update 15:50.  Wikileaks- Trafigura threats to Norwegian press over Minton Report exposing toxic dumping.

Comments

[LauraO]

Great news that this can now be reported on. 38 Degrees are currently running a campaign to stop this happening again. Take action now by emailing your MP and asking them to take a stand. Take action now, it only takes 2 mins. Go to:

www.38degrees.org.uk/stop-the-gag

[Pat Warren]

well done The Guardian then, but how come the Court went along with the injunction rather than leaving the matter for a libel action?

[Peter Harvey]

I recommend a written constitution, like Spain's for example (http://tinyurl.com/yjwpbnp):

Section 20:
1. The following rights are recognised and protected:
a) the right to freely express and spread thoughts, ideas and opinions through words, in writing or by any other means of reproduction.
(...)
d) the right to freely communicate or receive truthful information by any means of dissemination whatsoever ...
2. The exercise of these rights may not be restricted by any form of prior censorship.
(...)
5. The seizure of publications, recordings and other means of information [i.e. after publication] may only be carried out by means of a court order.

[Tony]

I wondered when you would......

[Peter Harvey]

Timothy Garton Ash says it more effectively in today's Guardian (http://tinyurl.com/ykagyf9). The UK's constitution is a muddle.

What I don't understand is how it happens. If, as a letter in today's Guardian (http://tinyurl.com/yz43wpl) states, the order is unlawful, why is the judge who made it not hauled up before the authorities? In Spain 'prevaricación' (knowingly making a false ruling) is a serious matter. It is what Garzón is being done for now and we may well see the President of the Valencian Supreme Court sunk by it soon.