We have the News of the World to thank for Chris Huhne's exposure

A fascination with the sex lives of the powerful finally pays off.

Those who despised the News of the World’s fascination with the sex lives of the powerful and famous should perhaps bear in mind that without that now defunct paper Chris Huhne would still be Energy and Secretary and we would be unaware that he was seriously dishonest.

Huhne’s trial by media began on 19 June, 2010, when the News of the World contacted him to say it had evidence he spent the night with his former press spokeswoman Carina Trimingham. Huhne responded by telling his wife Vicki Pryce that their marriage of 26 years was over and issuing a statement in time for the next day’s paper saying: “I am in a serious relationship with Carina Trimingham and I am separating from my wife." It was a brutal but effective tactic which had previously saved the politicial career of former Labour foreign secretary Robin Cook. 
 
But it did not end the press fascination with Huhne’s private life, especially when it emerged that  Trimingham had formerly had a female civil partner.
 
Trimingham later sued over 65 “highly unpleasant and hurtful” articles which appeared in the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday. These included a Richard Littlejohn piece on 22 June 2010 which said: "If you asked to draw a comedy lesbian from central casting, Carina Trimingham is what you'd get. All spiky hair and Doc Martens. Chuck in a boiler suit and she's Milly Tant straight from the pages of Viz magazine....What Huhne sees in her can only be a matter for speculation.”  In May 2012 the case  was thrown out after Mr Justice Tugenhat ruled that “ insulting and offensive speech is protected by the right of freedom of expression”.
 
Read the rest of this article on Press Gazette
Photograph: Getty Images

Dominic Ponsford is editor of Press Gazette

Getty
Show Hide image

How tribunal fees silenced low-paid workers: “it was more than I earned in a month”

The government was forced to scrap them after losing a Supreme Court case.

How much of a barrier were employment tribunal fees to low-paid workers? Ask Elaine Janes. “Bringing up six children, I didn’t have £20 spare. Every penny was spent on my children – £250 to me would have been a lot of money. My priorities would have been keeping a roof over my head.”

That fee – £250 – is what the government has been charging a woman who wants to challenge their employer, as Janes did, to pay them the same as men of a similar skills category. As for the £950 to pay for the actual hearing? “That’s probably more than I earned a month.”

Janes did go to a tribunal, but only because she was supported by Unison, her trade union. She has won her claim, although the final compensation is still being worked out. But it’s not just about the money. “It’s about justice, really,” she says. “I think everybody should be paid equally. I don’t see why a man who is doing the equivalent job to what I was doing should earn two to three times more than I was.” She believes that by setting a fee of £950, the government “wouldn’t have even begun to understand” how much it disempowered low-paid workers.

She has a point. The Taylor Review on working practices noted the sharp decline in tribunal cases after fees were introduced in 2013, and that the claimant could pay £1,200 upfront in fees, only to have their case dismissed on a technical point of their employment status. “We believe that this is unfair,” the report said. It added: "There can be no doubt that the introduction of fees has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of cases brought."

Now, the government has been forced to concede. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Unison’s argument that the government acted unlawfully in introducing the fees. The judges said fees were set so high, they had “a deterrent effect upon discrimination claims” and put off more genuine cases than the flimsy claims the government was trying to deter.

Shortly after the judgement, the Ministry of Justice said it would stop charging employment tribunal fees immediately and refund those who had paid. This bill could amount to £27m, according to Unison estimates. 

As for Janes, she hopes low-paid workers will feel more confident to challenge unfair work practices. “For people in the future it is good news,” she says. “It gives everybody the chance to make that claim.” 

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.