Tuesday, May 24, 2011
That Legal Question of Contempt and Privilege
"If the third party publishes information which is already fully and clearly in the public domain by reason of the acts of others, then the third party's act of publication does not have this effect. It does not have an adverse effect on the administration of justice in the action. The court's purpose in making its interlocutory order has, by then, already been defeated by the acts of others. This is so, whether those acts occurred before or after the court made its order."
So, the question I asked in The House on Monday would not have been in contempt of court if asked outside parliament. The information was in the public domain already. Widely so. I hadn't even seen a copy of the order. posted by John Hemming ¶ 6:53 pm
So, the question I asked in The House on Monday would not have been in contempt of court if asked outside parliament. The information was in the public domain already. Widely so. I hadn't even seen a copy of the order. posted by John Hemming ¶ 6:53 pm
Comments:
<< Home
Whatever you think of the law Mr Hemming it is strange that you feel free to discredit parliament and parliamentary privilege by flouting the law when you disagree with it.
This 'defence' that your actions were acceptable and even legal because many others had already ignored the authority of the Royal Courts of Justice is pitiful and not worthy of an MP.
If you arrive late at the lynching and club people who were already dead, does that absolve you of responsibility?
In the same vein how many would have to be at the lynching before it was decided that the law no longer applied? 100, 1000, 70000?
This 'defence' that your actions were acceptable and even legal because many others had already ignored the authority of the Royal Courts of Justice is pitiful and not worthy of an MP.
If you arrive late at the lynching and club people who were already dead, does that absolve you of responsibility?
In the same vein how many would have to be at the lynching before it was decided that the law no longer applied? 100, 1000, 70000?
When 75,000 people not only know something which is being unreasonably suppressed by the court, but are prepared to publish it, you have something of a problem anyway, do you not?
I was very disappointed that Dominic Grieve didn't have a meaningful answer for Mr Hemming as to what you do when the actions of the judiciary provoke such violent public backlash. What should be an elected parliament's reasonable response when a law is so clearly unpopular?
Tony, you make the mistake of believing that the law is always right, that the law is always morally sound, and that communsurate quality of judicial decision-making always accompanies it...
Post a Comment
I was very disappointed that Dominic Grieve didn't have a meaningful answer for Mr Hemming as to what you do when the actions of the judiciary provoke such violent public backlash. What should be an elected parliament's reasonable response when a law is so clearly unpopular?
Tony, you make the mistake of believing that the law is always right, that the law is always morally sound, and that communsurate quality of judicial decision-making always accompanies it...
<< Home
