Skip to main content

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.


Tony said…
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?
Tony said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Daddy said…
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...

Popular posts from this blog

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England. The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity. The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back. This is an issue that needs further work. In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.