Toxic Contempt

What's the point of Twitter? Who, other than Stephen Fry, can articulate so many daily aphorisms about their fascinating lives?

Well, Twitter came of age this week, when thousands of Twits ensured the wider world got to know the huge oil trading company, Trafigura, had succeeded in secretly preventing the reporting of Parliament.

Under the terms of an injunction granted by the High Court, the Guardian said in an article on 13 October, it was prevented from reporting Parliament and forbidden for saying why. "Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret."

Such articles are far from usual and attracted intense interest from the Twittering classes. And so a spontaneous, organic response erupted to trace a controversial PQ and publicise it. It was not very long before those Twitters zero-ed in on Paul Farrelly (Lab. Newcastle Under Lyme) who had put down questions for Justice Minister, Jack Straw on current cases of whistleblowing and court injunctions. One question was specifically about the legal suppression of the 'Minton' report commissioned by Trafigura, detailing their illegal toxic dumping of oil by-products in Ivory Coast in 2006. The net was deluged with exchanges on Trafigura and by 2 p.m the following day, the injunction was partially lifted.

Knowledge of this obscene example of insatiable corporate greed has spread exponentially against the efforts by Trafigura to shut down the story through old-fashioned libel bully boys, lawyers Carter-Ruck. They still suing BBC Newsnight for initially reporting, in May, the dumping which effected 10,000s of people in Abidjan, many with serious medical conditions.

Of course, MPs are a very indulgent lot, but their absolute privilege to raise any matter in Parliament combined with the media's right to report those proceedings, without prior restraint, is at the very core of British democracy. So victory is sweet for the sanctity of press freedom and its largely thanks to the new media of Twitter.

The question which the papers are not raising yet, is why was this super-injunction granted in the first place? It would be more understandable for his Honour, Mr Justice Maddison to grant an temporary injunction, pending further submissions, if any report were deemed significantly injurious to a company's trading reputation. But that could hardly be said to apply when the matter rested solely on the reporting of questions raised in Parliament, about a report whose existence was already in the public domain.

Why didn't Justice Maddison simply refuse, on the grounds an injunction would contravene the Bill of Rights which grants privilege? It is impossible to say. But the matter is to be thrashed out in the Commons next Wednesday (21 Oct) in a debate raised by Lib-Dem, Dr. Evan Harris. One presumes the public will be able to watch it on BBC Parliament. At least, if we are faced with blank screens, we will have a good idea why.

______________________________________________________

Friday. Stop Press. Carter Ruck have written to the Speaker, John Bercow and all members arguing there was still an "active" case and so the matters to be debated next week were in effect "sub judice". Again, MPs maintain Parliamentary privilege to discuss these matters, "subject to the discretion of the chair."

If any MP were foolish enough to seriously compromise an ongoing trial in a Parliamentary speech then, of course, Speaker Bercow would be correct in preventing further damage to the judicial process. But there is no trial here with a jury at risk of being swayed. Carter Ruck are only referring to any future hearing, on its own injunction, preventing the release of the details of the Minton report. The debate is about law firms interfering in the Sovereignty of Parliament.

This is Bercow's first big test as Speaker. Stand firm, stout fellow.