Superinjunctions are court orders that forbid the reporting of the court order. Many journalists have been trying to support the idea of superinjunctions by alleging that they are only used to protect the personal affairs of footballers but, as can be seen from the Trafigura case superinjunctions are not about privacy, they are something far more sinister. They make the law secret and are an affront to democracy. Hyperinjunctions are worse that superinjunctions, even forbidding anyone to talk to Members of Parliament about an injunction.
There have only been about 50 or 60 superinjunctions most of which are veiled in secrecy but two of those that have been exposed are deeply worrying. The first is a superinjunction by Trafigura to forbid any reporting of the dumping of toxic waste in Africa (See Trafigura: super-injunction). The second was taken out by "Sir" Fred Goodwin, one of the assassins of the world banking system.
The Trafigura case was about the illegal dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast:
"On July 2, 2006, the Probo Koala, a ship leased by the company (Trafigura), entered a port in Amsterdam to unload several hundred tons of toxic waste.[7] Amsterdam Port Services BV, the company that had been contracted to take the waste, raised their price to process the waste 20-fold soon after determining the waste was more toxic than previously understood. So, after balking at a competitor's 1000 euro per cubic metre disposal charge near Amsterdam, Trafigura decided to have the ship take back the waste and have it processed en route to different offloading sites, which all refused it until Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire, one of Africa's largest seaports. According to Trafigura the waste was then handed over[8] to a local newly formed dumping company, Compagnie Tommy, which illegally dumped the waste instead of processing it. Many people there became sick due to exposure to the waste, and investigations were begun to determine whether it was intentionally dumped by Trafigura. Trafigura stated in a press statement that their tests showed the waste not to be as toxic as had been claimed, and that they were unsure why so many people had become ill from exposure to it.[9]" Wikipedia article on Trafigura
The other case concerns "Sir" Fred Goodwin, ex head of Royal Bank of Scotland, and appears to involve an affair between him and a senior female member of the Royal Bank of Scotland staff (See Wikipedia article on Goodwin). Anyone who has worked in an organisation where the boss is in sexual cahoots with a fellow executive will be aware of what a powerful combination this creates. It explains why the RBS directors and other senior executives acted in such a prostrate manner when RBS became overextended and acquired ABN-Amro.
Both of these cases are about events that are clearly in the public interest. They show that judges are not capable of judging this public interest and should not be entrusted with such power.
The only publicised case of a hyperinjunction was reported in the Guardian (see guardian article):
"This double-secret form of super-injunction, unveiled only recently by the MP (Hemmings), specifically bars a person from discussing something with "members of Parliament, journalists and lawyers", except for his own defence lawyers.
Its effectiveness is clearly demonstrated by the fact that it's not new at all: the hyper-injunction Hemmings referred to – concerning allegations to do with ships' drinking water tanks being coated with toxic paint – dated from 2006, and we're only just hearing about it. We have no idea how much of this legal dark matter currently exists."
Again the hyperinjunction was not in the public interest.
The issue is that the law must be seen to be done to be done. It is fundamental to a democracy to inform the people that a legal judgment has been made. Superinjunctions ban even the mention of the court case and if they are not against the letter of the British Constitution they are against the spirit of every constitutional document from the Magna Carta onwards. According to the Guardian these dreadful judgements have been introduced to the UK on the back of the right to privacy enshrined in the 1998 Human Rights Act, itself based on the European convention on human rights. It is either time for the UK to have its own Declaration of Human Rights and withdraw from the European Court of Human Rights or our government should withdraw from the agreement until the European law is amended appropriately.
The coverage of super-injunctions by journalists, as usual, is largely despicable. They cannot resist descending into salacious coverage of the subject of the injunctions such as footballer's mistresses and have failed to draw the fundamental constitutional issue to the attention of the public: that the legal process must be seen to be done to be a legal process. It is the SUPER and HYPER injunctions that are entirely wrong, they are not about privacy but are about the law itself.
There have only been about 50 or 60 superinjunctions most of which are veiled in secrecy but two of those that have been exposed are deeply worrying. The first is a superinjunction by Trafigura to forbid any reporting of the dumping of toxic waste in Africa (See Trafigura: super-injunction). The second was taken out by "Sir" Fred Goodwin, one of the assassins of the world banking system.
The Trafigura case was about the illegal dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast:
"On July 2, 2006, the Probo Koala, a ship leased by the company (Trafigura), entered a port in Amsterdam to unload several hundred tons of toxic waste.[7] Amsterdam Port Services BV, the company that had been contracted to take the waste, raised their price to process the waste 20-fold soon after determining the waste was more toxic than previously understood. So, after balking at a competitor's 1000 euro per cubic metre disposal charge near Amsterdam, Trafigura decided to have the ship take back the waste and have it processed en route to different offloading sites, which all refused it until Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire, one of Africa's largest seaports. According to Trafigura the waste was then handed over[8] to a local newly formed dumping company, Compagnie Tommy, which illegally dumped the waste instead of processing it. Many people there became sick due to exposure to the waste, and investigations were begun to determine whether it was intentionally dumped by Trafigura. Trafigura stated in a press statement that their tests showed the waste not to be as toxic as had been claimed, and that they were unsure why so many people had become ill from exposure to it.[9]" Wikipedia article on Trafigura
The other case concerns "Sir" Fred Goodwin, ex head of Royal Bank of Scotland, and appears to involve an affair between him and a senior female member of the Royal Bank of Scotland staff (See Wikipedia article on Goodwin). Anyone who has worked in an organisation where the boss is in sexual cahoots with a fellow executive will be aware of what a powerful combination this creates. It explains why the RBS directors and other senior executives acted in such a prostrate manner when RBS became overextended and acquired ABN-Amro.
Both of these cases are about events that are clearly in the public interest. They show that judges are not capable of judging this public interest and should not be entrusted with such power.
The only publicised case of a hyperinjunction was reported in the Guardian (see guardian article):
"This double-secret form of super-injunction, unveiled only recently by the MP (Hemmings), specifically bars a person from discussing something with "members of Parliament, journalists and lawyers", except for his own defence lawyers.
Its effectiveness is clearly demonstrated by the fact that it's not new at all: the hyper-injunction Hemmings referred to – concerning allegations to do with ships' drinking water tanks being coated with toxic paint – dated from 2006, and we're only just hearing about it. We have no idea how much of this legal dark matter currently exists."
Again the hyperinjunction was not in the public interest.
The issue is that the law must be seen to be done to be done. It is fundamental to a democracy to inform the people that a legal judgment has been made. Superinjunctions ban even the mention of the court case and if they are not against the letter of the British Constitution they are against the spirit of every constitutional document from the Magna Carta onwards. According to the Guardian these dreadful judgements have been introduced to the UK on the back of the right to privacy enshrined in the 1998 Human Rights Act, itself based on the European convention on human rights. It is either time for the UK to have its own Declaration of Human Rights and withdraw from the European Court of Human Rights or our government should withdraw from the agreement until the European law is amended appropriately.
The coverage of super-injunctions by journalists, as usual, is largely despicable. They cannot resist descending into salacious coverage of the subject of the injunctions such as footballer's mistresses and have failed to draw the fundamental constitutional issue to the attention of the public: that the legal process must be seen to be done to be a legal process. It is the SUPER and HYPER injunctions that are entirely wrong, they are not about privacy but are about the law itself.
Comments