Pertinent observation.Most of the injunctions are sought for by crooks and fraudsters and corporates, and not by ordinary law abiding citizens.Because of their connections to powers that be and money power they gag every authority.
Yes,contempt proceedings shall be in order even if the comments are made on judicial pronouncements through internet social networks. Client and lawyer, both should be hauled up.
At the same time judiciary should alsoi ensure the parliamentarians do not use their privileges to make irresponsible,unsubstantiated statements.
Story.
‘Britain’s most senior judge has warned his fellow judges that he cannot envisage any circumstances in which it would be “constitutionally possible or proper” for a court to make an order that gagged debate in parliament. His warning follows the Guardian’s free speech victory last week when lawyers for the oil trading company Trafigura gave up their attempt to gag parliament over its dumping of toxic waste in Ivory Coast.
Lord Judge’s remarks – which included a warning against the free use of “super-injunctions – come before a Commons debate on the affair tomorrow moved by the Liberal Democrat Evan Harris at which MPs are expected to voice continuing concerns at attempts by lawyers Carter-Ruck to use the courts to gag parliament.’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/20/free-speech-in-parliament-precious
Leave a Reply