View all newsletters
Sign up for our free email newsletters

Fighting for quality news media in the digital age.

  1. Media Law
October 21, 2009

Lord Chief Justice: ‘Cannot envisage a court gagging Parliament’

By PA Media Lawyer

The Lord Chief Justice has cast doubt on whether it would be constitutionally possible for a court to issue an injunction which would affect the discussion of a topic in Parliament.

Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, said yesterday he would need “very powerful persuasion indeed” to prove it would be constitutionally possible for a court to make an order which would affect discussion of a topic in Parliament.

He told reporters: “I am speaking entirely personally but I should need some very powerful persuasion indeed.

‘And that, I suppose, is close to saying I simply cannot envisage that it would be constitutionally possible, or proper, for a court to make an order which might prevent or hinder or limit discussion of any topic in Parliament.

“Or that any judge would intentionally formulate an injunction which would purport to have that effect.

“We use the words ‘fundamental principle’ very frequently, but this is a fundamental principle.

“The absolute privilege for members to speak freely in Parliament did not come without a price and previous generations fought and indeed died for it.

Content from our partners
MHP Group's 30 To Watch awards for young journalists open for entries
How PA Media is helping newspapers make the digital transition
Publishing on the open web is broken, how generative AI could help fix it

“It is a very precious heritage which, in my view, should be vigorously maintained and defended by this generation.

“There are clear conventions about the circumstances in which Parliament will or will not discuss proceedings in court and I have no doubt these conventions will be followed so as to avoid any possible interference with the administration of justice.

“That is not because a court has sought to order it, but because Parliament has chosen in the public interest not to insist on its privileges.”

His comments follow the uproar last week over an order obtained against The Guardian which the newspaper said prevented it from reporting written questions tabled in the House of Commons by an MP.

The order was subsequently amended to make it clear that it was not intended to restrict reporting of Parliamentary proceedings.

However, Lord Judge said there were many cases in which so-called “super injunctions” – High Court orders the existence of which cannot be disclosed – were “amply justified.”

Email pged@pressgazette.co.uk to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog

Select and enter your email address Weekly insight into the big strategic issues affecting the future of the news industry. Essential reading for media leaders every Thursday. Your morning brew of news about the world of news from Press Gazette and elsewhere in the media. Sent at around 10am UK time. Our weekly does of strategic insight about the future of news media aimed at US readers. A fortnightly update from the front-line of news and advertising. Aimed at marketers and those involved in the advertising industry.
  • Business owner/co-owner
  • CEO
  • COO
  • CFO
  • CTO
  • Chairperson
  • Non-Exec Director
  • Other C-Suite
  • Managing Director
  • President/Partner
  • Senior Executive/SVP or Corporate VP or equivalent
  • Director or equivalent
  • Group or Senior Manager
  • Head of Department/Function
  • Manager
  • Non-manager
  • Retired
  • Other
Visit our privacy Policy for more information about our services, how New Statesman Media Group may use, process and share your personal data, including information on your rights in respect of your personal data and how you can unsubscribe from future marketing communications.
Thank you

Thanks for subscribing.

Websites in our network