Hyper-injunctions: The enemy of free speech

Voters are being barred from speaking to their MPs under a new generation of gagging orders known as hyper-injunctions, the House of Commons has been told.
Politicians criticised the injunctions as an "affront to democracy" after John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat MP, disclosed details of one on the floor of the Commons last week.

His comments are protected by parliamentary privilege, which means he cannot face court proceedings for revealing the injunction's existence. This month, Mr Hemming also used parliamentary privilege to disclose that Sir Fred Goodwin, the former chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland, had taken out a super-injunction.

The hyper-injunction goes a step further. Mr Hemming told the Commons that the order, which was obtained at the High Court in 2006, prevents an individual from saying that paint used in water tanks on passenger ships could break down and release potentially toxic chemicals.

It specifically bars the person from discussing the case with "members of Parliament, journalists and lawyers", along with the US coastguard and any ship owners, and also forbids any speculation linking chemicals in the paint with the illness of any individuals.

It says: "The defendant must not communicate to the third parties any speculation that the illness of any individual (including without limitation the collapse of H) was, has been or will be brought out by the chemical composition or the chemicals present in the coating of the potable water tanks." According to Mr Hemming, the individual was given a two-week suspended sentence after talking to a lawyer about whether he would take up the case on a no-win, no-fee basis. Mr Hemming said: "What we have, therefore, is passenger vessels trundling around the world with potentially toxic substances being released into the tanks. One of those who worked on the tanks collapsed as a result.

Don't care anymore.

I know that the constitution is a whole mishmash of different documents, but I'm pretty sure that denying a constituent access to their MP is about as unconstitutional as you can get. The Supreme Court should be made to slap this down, and if they refuse to then hopefully there'll be a big Judiciary Vs. Legislature fight. Woop!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8394566/Hyper-injunction-stops-you-talking-to-MP.html


It lays the grounds for a corporate police state.

Ok, so you are completely fine with having your freedom of speech eroded.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

What kind of a retard judge allowed such an injunction?

I am.

The reasons that injunctions in cases like these are granted are because claims made are held to be defamatory or there is a breach of confidence or privacy. These so-called superinjunctions are only used in the latter whilst a case is subject to judicial proceedings and there is a sound prima facie case that the matter being heard were improper.

The alternative is that individuals would be unable to guard against defamation and breaches of confidence because the matter would become one of public knowledge. It would make judicial enforcement of the law in this area practically unworkable.

We entrust judges with the ability to discern what restrictions are necessary for the operation of justice. That is, to my mind, perfectly sound.

And is not being able to change anything a reason for giving up in your view?

Evil will never go away, but it will be stopped from flourishing if good men (and good ladies ) always stand up to it.

I have no control over lots of issues, but why on earth should that mean I stop caring about them?

And you seriously think that's an acceptable reason for giving up on the things you care about?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8394566/Hyper-injunction-stops-you-talking-to-MP.html


It lays the grounds for a corporate police state.

It lays the grounds for a corporate police state.