John Hemming's Web Log

Well, well, well I didn't think that CTB could be that stupid. 2 million people have seen the Twitter account. Over 116,000 have subscribed to it. Twitter have highlighted it. Now CTB has decided to sue Twitter to get the account details. All they can get is the Internet Protocol address unless someone has been stupid enough to use their normal email address. This could be the address of an internet cafe. All of the computers in parliament on the parliamentary network have the same external IP address. Hence it is a bit difficult to pin down the person who posted the details even if twitter divvy up the information. What it has done, however, is to send the information global (apart from in the UK). Something that very few people are actually bothered about has now got the maximum promotion. I have said for some time that getting the injunction is often worse than that which it is supposed to conceal. What it does do, however, is make this particular case sub judice and hence n...

The link is to the judgment today in the above case. Section 12 of the 1998 Human Rights Act can be found here Where in the judgment can you find reference to 12 (4) The court must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression and, where the proceedings relate to material which the respondent claims, or which appears to the court, to be journalistic, literary or artistic material (or to conduct connected with such material), to— (a)the extent to which— (i)the material has, or is about to, become available to the public; or (ii)it is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published; (b)any relevant privacy code. Here is another injunction that ignores S 12 (4)

Much that the presence of the twitter account that purports to reveal contents of a number of super injunctions was in the news on Monday, the account is still there and now has 113,865 followers. What we have is a law that is not generally accepted as well as a law that only really benefits wealthy men. The point about the checks and balances in the system is to ensure that the laws do have general acceptance through the parliamentary systems. One of the challenges, however, is that when courts sit in secret and make orders that themselves are secret it is difficult to get clarity as to whether the laws do or do not have general acceptance. Obviously when it comes to the question of privacy it has become quite clear that the current position does not have general acceptance. My own view is that some of the other things that have been kept secret by court orders are issues that would not have general acceptance. However, that can only be tested by getting those issues into the publi...

The link is to David Allen Green's piece on the New Statesman website about Wikileaks and their aggressive approach to staff secrecy.

The link is to the debate in parliament about Clause 13 of the Human Rights Bill on 2nd July 1998. It does show how far the courts have gone from parliament's intention.

John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, if he will instruct legal representatives to intervene on one or more cases in respect of recent judgments in terms of the balance between Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights to take the case to the Supreme Court for a ruling on the interpretation of section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998. (55629)

The link is to the judgment. The conclusion of the judgment is: However, the Court has consistently emphasised the need to look beyond the facts of the present case and to consider the broader impact of a pre-notification requirement. The limited scope under Article 10 for restrictions on the freedom of the press to publish material which contributes to debate on matters of general public interest must be borne in mind. Thus, having regard to the chilling effect to which a pre-notification requirement risks giving rise, to the significant doubts as to the effectiveness of any pre-notification requirement and to the wide margin of appreciation in this area, the Court is of the view that Article 8 does not require a legally binding pre-notification requirement. Accordingly, the Court concludes that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention by the absence of such a requirement in domestic law. It is just not practicable to have a legal requirement to notify people every ...

The link is to a Daily Mail story that has a privacy order as part of an Employment Tribunal. A celebrity chef won a privacy order yesterday granting him anonymity over claims he mistreated two employees whom he later sacked at his business empire. The ruling means that he cannot be named at an employment tribunal later this year brought by the female and male members of his staff. I will be looking for the judgment for this. Superficially this looks wrong.

The link is another story is about SBS and whether the science is reliable.

Someone kindly put the debate on youtube.

Vicky has sensibly decided to leave the UK to avoid the adoption machine. It remains the case that a majority of the children that leave care aged under 5 do so through adotion. Hence if her baby had been taken the care she would have faced the likelihood that it would have been adopted. An evil evil system. The link is to her story in the Sunday Telegraph. The system is more evil because the treatment of the babies in care causes a large proportion of them to be so psychologically damaged that a large proportion of the adoptions fail as well. If anyone wants to check this they need to see Michael Rutters research which demonstrates that it is the period of 6-18 months that is key for psychological development. The vast proportion of babies taken into care are taken into care before 6 months. Hence it is the care system that normally does this not the natural mother.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." See Wikipedia Petition and assembly The right to petition the government extends to petitions of all three branches of government: the Congress, the executive and the judiciary.[88] According to the Supreme Court, "redress of grievances" is to be construed broadly: it includes not solely appeals by the public to the government for the redressing of a grievance in the traditional sense, but also, petitions on behalf of private interests seeking personal gain.[89] Nonetheless, in the past, Congress has directly limited the right to petition. During the 1790s, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, punishing opponents of the Federalist Party; the Supreme Court never ruled on the matter. In 183...

Some confusion has reigned in the blogosphere about today's points of order. My objective was to identify the parties in the Vicky Haigh / Doncaster case where Doncaster tried to Jail Vicky for talking in Parliament. All the other details of the story are in the public domain, but an injunction prevented the parties being identified. Now they can be identified. Points of Order 5.26 pm John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Vicky Haigh, a horse trainer and former jockey, was the subject of an attempt by Doncaster council to imprison her for speaking at a meeting in Parliament. There was discussion earlier today as to whether that case was sub judice. An application was made to the court, a copy of which I have provided to your office. Additionally, I have provided to your office a copy of the court order in which it was deemed that she would not be jailed. I assume, therefore, that the case is not sub judice, in accordance with sub-paragraph (b)(i...

Hemming welcomes Andrew Marr's turn away from the dark side John Hemming MP has welcomed Andrew Marr's decision to let his injunction lapse. "Those people who live by the sword", he said "should be prepared to die by the sword." "I am pleased that he has shown his commitment to freedom of speech by turning from the dark side of gagging orders." "I hope that other people who have obtained injunctions will recognise the error of their ways and let the injunctions lapse."

This is something by "New Media Animation" about Superinjunctions. Their website is here . Incidentally what they really mean is injunctions. Super - a court order that itself cannot be talked about (I think these have mainly stopped now). Hyper - an attempt to stop people talking to MPs Quaero - an attempt to stop investigation by anyone (particularly journalists) It is, however, all about Freedom of Speech (and where the limits on privacy should be).

One thing that really shouldn't surprise me is the confusion about how the European Court of Human Rights works and the associated institutions. The issues of Privacy Law and Prisoners Voting are two issues where this confusion is creating a lot of tension. The European Court of Human Rights is guided by a number of international treaties including the Convention of Human Rights and its protocols. However, it is also guided by the resolutions of the Council of Europe parliamentary assembly. The Council of Europe contains delegations from all of the Council of Europe Countries. Many countries don't have prisoner voting. It is, therefore, entirely straightforward to propose a resolution in the CoE that if convicted prisoners do not have the vote that this should not be treated as a contravention of Article 3 Protocol 1. Similarly resolutions of the CoE guide privacy law. There are two key resolutions here: .428 (1970) and 1165 (1998) There are some useful extracts: From 1970 ...

The link is to a story by someone who has to remain anonymous - for the moment. It puts the story of those people on the receiving end of superinjunctions.

The link is to my article about Freedom of Speech in the Sunday Times. It is behind the paywall. this is a Mirror story.

The link is to the case reported today which has kept something so secret that there is a Contra Mundum order. I do not think this will have any effect in the USA which is a big part of the world. An issue relating to this case that is important to me is that it had only one side represented.