Purchase today

Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team.

Jobs

User login

David Allen Green

A critical and liberal look at law and policy

RSS

Unfettered reporting of Parliamentary proceedings is not a clear right

A first glance at the Neuberger Report.

By David Allen Green Published 20 May 2011 12:42

The Neuberger Report on superinjunctions, anonymised injunctions and open justice has just been published. The report is by a committee of senior media lawyers and judges chaired by Lord Neuberger, the Master of the Rolls.

Unsurprisingly, it shows that there have actually been few recent superinjunctions applied for or granted. They are and will continue to be exceptional. The report also gives short shift to the so-called "hyperinjunctions" that supposedly restricted MPs taking raising the cases of their constituents.

However, the report does find that there is a gap in the general right of the press to report on parliamentary proceedings. Unless the reports are covered by the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 (which is fairly narrow), a press report which would otherwise break a court order appears not to be protected.

The report here states:

6.33 It therefore appears to be an open question whether, and to what extent, the common law protects media reporting of Parliamentary proceedings where such reporting appears to breach the terms of a court order and is not covered by the protection provided by the 1840 Act. What is clear is that unfettered reporting of Parliamentary proceedings (in apparent breach of court orders) has not been established as a clear right.

6.34 It is a matter of substantive policy whether Parliament wishes to clarify the law in this area, and it may well do so in the Defamation Bill, of which a draft is currently being considered by a Parliamentary Joint Committee, or in the proposed Parliamentary Privilege Draft Bill. It may be that the law will be clarified by the courts in due course. All this Committee can do is to say that, on the first question identified in paragraph 6.1 above, the law is quite clear, and, on the second question, it is not.

This blog will provide a fuller review later.

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

More from David Allen Green

View the discussion thread.

6 comments

Sun, 2011-05-22 12:32 — simplevips53

welcome ___ http://tld30.com/?SZRg3p

Sat, 2011-05-21 00:00 — Lou (not verified)

David,

If parliament makes the law and not judges,who just apply the law, and super injunctions are something created by judges and not parliament, then surely a super injunction is illegal under British law and parliament and the press can therefore say what they want?

Can the illegality of the super injunction not be challenged by the Justice secretary, the Attorney General etc?

Sat, 2011-05-21 00:58 — praha7 (not verified)

As parliament is broadcast live what implications does this report have for the broadcasting authorities?
If the breaking of an injunction by a parliamentarian is caught on camera is Neuberger saying that the broadcaster would be liable to be prosecuted?
If so this is truly Orwellian.A parliamentarian speaks in the public interest but the public is not allowed to know.
To say the law is an ass is to be unjust to asses.

Sat, 2011-05-21 02:52 — Mrs.Josephine Hyde-Hartley (not verified)

"The report also gives short shift to the so-called "hyperinjunctions" that supposedly restricted MPs taking raising the cases of their constituents."

Surely there can be nothing that can legally restrict an M.P properly raising the concerns of their constituents in Parliament. N.B Members of Parliament aren't employed to treat us citizens as "cases" as far as I'm concerned as a common citizen - They are elected by constituents who may occasionally want to tell them something important in confidence and privacy without being automatically associated with any figment of the legal imagination known as a "case" ie pertaining to employment law or otherwise.

Personally I'm getting fed up with the language of courts and/or court type scenes that is spoiling what might otherwise be a splendid relationship between an M.P and their constituent. It's the same when looking at the so-called mainstream media - This word "issue" is particularly irksome, boring and wonts better regulation. The relationship between a constituent and their M.P like the relationship between the judge and the executive - eg a head judge and the Lord chancellor or Secretary of State for Justice - is dedicated first to improvement, please. It should never become an excuse for the invention of unnecessary and inappropriate conflict.

Here in the UK citizens don't need the so-called media to raise our concerns because we have M.P's. Sadly, until our M.P's themselves are better regulated at the constituency level in terms of confidentiality and data control and privilege, in my view (and experience) the common sense endeavours and the effort and personal expense a citizen may spend raising important concerns with one's M.P, are likely to end up lost - even in these uncontrolled technological clouds, I dare say.

Sat, 2011-05-21 17:13 — Lloyd Jenkins (not verified)

@Lou
The line between 'creating' law and 'applying' it is fudged by the need to interpret law before it's applied. Superinjunctions are the result of interpretation. Basically, Parliament wants the right to privacy protected and that can only be done by restraining publication until all of the facts of the case have been heard. Therefore creating superinjunctions wasn't 'creating' law so much as applying it after proper interpretation. Whatever their flaws may be, I don't think that superinjunctions are unconstitutional.

Sat, 2011-05-21 23:30 — Lou (not verified)

Thank you Lloyd, much appreciated.