Until that resolution [of the matter referred to in the injunction], it is not appropriate to comment on the Order [the injunction], other than to make it clear that we and our clients are in no doubt that it was entirely appropriate for us to seek the injunctive relief in question ...

Clearly the question of whether this matter is sub judice is entirely a matter for your [the speaker's] discretion, although we would observe that we believe the proceedings to have been and to remain "Active" within the definition of House Resolution CJ (2001-02) 194-195 of 15 November 2001 in that arrangements have been made for the hearing of an application before the Court.

The resolution being referred to says this (my emphasis):

Matters sub judice

Resolution of 15th November 2001

Resolved, That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, and to the right of the House to legislate on any matter or to discuss any delegated legislation, the House in all its proceedings (including proceedings of committees of the House) shall apply the following rules on matters sub judice:

(1) Cases in which proceedings are active in United Kingdom courts shall not be referred to in any motion, debate or question.

(b) (i) Civil proceedings are active when arrangements for the hearing, such as setting down a case for trial, have been made, until the proceedings are ended by judgment or discontinuance.

So although they don't spell it out in their letter, they have basically written to the speaker to suggest that this matter is sub judice and should not therefore be discussed in Parliament.

In the same letter, Carter Ruck also say this:

... there has never been any question of Trafigura applying for an injunction that had as its purpose the prevention of publication of any matter arising in Parliament.

No. But they have written a letter suggesting MPs don't discuss the matter in hand - so there wouldn't be any need for an injunction preventing reporting them, as it wouldn't have been discussed.

Fortunately, the resolution says that it is subject to the discretion of the Chair.

Let's hope the speaker uses his discretion wisely.

Update The Carter Ruck sidewiki now has 12 yeses. And there is a sidewiki on the Trafigura site now (with only one yes - hint, hint) that says:

Guardian Controversy

On Tuesday 13 October, 2009, Trafigura was caught up in a controversial gagging order against The Guardian newspaper in the UK in relation to a parliamentary question that was due to be asked by Paul Farrelly about the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste on the Ivory Coast.

The issue became something of a cause celebre on social networks including Twitter and Facebook, and is considered to be an exemplar of what has come to be know as the Streisand Effect - ie the act of attempting to surpress information leads to its widespread distribution.

(Thanks to Jo Wadsworth for the tipoff).

Original post I won't rehearse the Trafigura injunction story - google it if you haven't heard about it. But I thought that google's sidewiki could provide some fun - I could go and add comments to the home page of both the Carter Ruck website and the Trafigura site.

Sidewiki and Carter Ruck

Somewhere had got there first (you'll need the google toolbar to see the sidewiki) with Carter Ruck. Josh Dayson has written:

R.I.P Carter-Ruck In loving memory of the people that gagged the Guardian reporting on the British parliament. Was brought down by Twitter on the 13th October 2009.

After I tweeted a link to it, it went up to 8 'yeses' so I guess it'll stay for a while.

Sidewiki and Trafigura

No one had written anything on the Trafigura site, so I quickly wrote a sidewiki that described the background to the injunction and linked to:

• the Guardian's Trafigura pages,
• the Spectator's original, deliberate breach of the injunction,
• the OJB's excellent roundup of today's online coverage of the injunction, and
• the Minton report on wikileaks.

And then I completely chickened out and deleted it.

I guess this is what their lawyers want - even on a day when Trafigura ostensibly lost, the UK libel laws worry me too much to (a) leave the sidewiki there or (b) link to the Minton report from this blog.

As I've pointed out  before, reporting restrictions and bloggers don't really mix. I don't have any way to find out what the other injunctions around this case are (the BBC says that "the injunction on reporting the contents of the Minton report remains in place.")

Is it OK to mention the Minton report? Clearly. Is it OK to describe what's in it? It would seem not. Can I link to it? I guess not - but who knows? I have no way to see the injunction.

And while everyone jumps up and down about how Twitter beat Carter Ruck, the ability for these injunctions to be put in place remains. There are clearly others affecting other people or companies that we don't know about. And there are clearly further injunctions about Trafigura we don't know about.

Now, who's got nothing to lose and fancies writing a sidewiki?