Privacy and Injunctions - Evidence - Parliament

Paul Staines, Jamie East, David Allen Green, and Richard Wilson—Oral evidence (QQ 326–
403)
the question of whether there should be a super-injunction, on balance a society where
there can be such things, which can be abused in the way they have been so horribly in the
last couple of years in this country, is worse than a society that does not allow courts to
pass secret rulings in this way and then deals with the consequences. It is the lesser of two
evils. I accept that there are cases where it can be harmful for information to get into the
public domain. We need to do what we can to try to prevent that, but I do not think that a
super-injunction is an appropriate solution.
Q372 Mr Llwyd: When you acted in a manner that appeared to breach an
injunction, whether or not you realised it, what was your motivation? How were you sure
that you would not be prosecuted for what you did?
Richard Wilson: I was not at all sure that I would not be prosecuted. It is very
important for the Joint Committee to understand that, along with many other people who
took the decision to publish that information, I was aware there was a risk I would find
myself in court. My thought process was that, if somebody wanted to put me on trial for
publishing the text of a parliamentary question on Twitter, so be it. Maybe I would be
wrong, but I think that was the case. From speaking to other people that knew, it just
seemed an outrage and completely absurd, and that was the motivation.
Q373 Mr Llwyd: Are you referring specifically to the Trafigura case?
Richard Wilson: Yes, very specifically that case. I think that case stands out. I think
this is a case of confidence rather than privacy. I accept there are important distinctions. I
am more concerned about cases of confidence. We are not talking about an individual
person but a large company trying to prevent embarrassing information coming out. I have a
lot of sympathy for the desire to protect people’s family life. I would take a slightly different
view on that from others on this panel, but even in those situations I do not believe a
super-injunction is appropriate.
Q374 Martin Horwood: I want to go back to a potentially important point made
almost in passing. You seemed to suggest in the case of the footballers that the public
interest test should not be applied to the revelatory stories but to the injunction; in other
words, you would ask somebody trying to bring one of these injunctions to prove not just
that they had a right to private and family life, which is the phrase in article 8, but that the
granting of the injunction was in the public interest on a wider basis. Is that really what you
mean?
Paul Staines: You have summarised it quite succinctly. Everyone recalls the
Trafigura case. I wonder whether people remember the Merrill Lynch memorandum about
Northern Rock. Merrill Lynch produced for the Treasury a memorandum saying that saving
Northern Rock might cost £50 billion. The FT published it and within an hour it was
injuncted and removed. I think that when £50 billion of public money is to be spent, it is in
the public interest to know about it.
1086