MP reveals “hyper” injunctions in name of open justice

20 March 2011 by

Updated | It all started with the reporting of an injunction, supposedly obtained by former Royal Bank of Scotland chief executive, “preventing him being identified as a banker”. A mildly interesting story, made marginally more so by the fact that the injunction had been breached by an MP during a Parliamentary debate.

But there is more to the story. As bloggers Anna Raccoon, Charon QC and Obiter J have reported, on a Parliamentary debate on Thursday the same Liberal Democrat MP, John Hemming, revealed the details of a number of other (what he called) “hyper” injunctions. The common feature was that courts had ordered not only that the parties to litigation were to be prevented from revealing details of their cases to the public, but also to their MPs.

How did Hemming bypass the otherwise watertight court orders? Normally anyone breaching such an order would be liable to prosecution for contempt of court. But he relied upon a centuries old protection under article 9 of the 1688 Bill of Rights:

Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.

He also quoted article 13, which provides:

And that for Redresse of all Grievances and for the amending strengthening and preserveing of the Lawes Parlyaments ought to be held frequently.

His point was that in order for Parliament to “Redress… all Grievances”, MPs need to know what is going on in their constituencies. They cannot know if constituents are threatened with contempt of court for telling them their grievances.

By coincidence, Hemming’s revelations coincide with a potentially groundbreaking speech by Lord Neuberger, the head of the court of appeal, on open justice. He is chairing a working party on so-called “super” injunctions, which have been used to prevent the press finding out salacious details of cases involving celebrities. As Inforrm’s blog points out, he is very much alive to concerns that

they have, as Professor Zuckerman has put it, developed into a form of entirely secret form of procedure. As he put it, ‘English administration of justice has not (previously) allowed’, that is ‘for the entire legal process to be conducted out of the public view and for its very existence to be kept permanently secret under pain of contempt.

Hemming’s worries feed into this, although Neuberger’s nuanced approach in his speech suggests he will not go as far as banning the super-injunction altogether. It will be fascinating to see if more MPs use their Parliamentary privilege to reveal other such “hyper” injunctions, and whether they may end up being breached as a matter of course.

The reason for secrecy injunctions, as pointed out by a commenter below, is that a case should not be prejudiced by public revelations. On the one hand, it is worrying that there are matters which are so secretive that they cannot even reach a Parliamentary representative. On the other, if MPs enthusiastically use their rights of privilege to reveal such orders – and presumably this may sometimes be for political rather than “open justice” motivations – this does appear to prove why they exist in the first place.

Update – The Telegraph have reported the story here

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more


  1. bb says:

    May I respond the crux is simply about the freedom and the right of an individual to speak with his or her elected member of parliament?

    When corporatism use the power of wealth to dictate to the law of the courts this is a catastrophe within the British society.

    Injunctions such as debated by Mr Hemming are simply wrong as this type of injunction prevents the corporate power from ever being investigated for any criminal activity.

    If more members of parliament had the bottle to do as Mr Hemming has these injunctions would simply stop corporate dictating their will.

    While hiding behind injunctions corporate management are evading prosecution they black people in their process as they dictate to the courts their will.

    Injunctions should not be in place which prevents the prosecution of corporate management.

    This injunction has done just that.

    We have a horror unfolding within the corridors of power within the judicial system. Without transparency justice served is an injustice.

    All judges should not be party to suppression in the form Mr John Hemming has brought before parliament.

    Mr John Hemming is a man of integrity and his good integrity is the benefit of all

    try this website

  2. Huw Sayer says:

    Injunctions to protect the identity of children and vulnerable adults I can accept. Injunctions (used in moderation) to prevent the media prejudicing important criminal trials – quite understand. But an injunction simply to prevent the media from reporting that someone rich and famous has possibly had an affair or that a company is possibly responsible for pollution (so that the person or company can maintain the illusion of respectability) – now that seems like nonsense.

    How come these cases get so much protection, yet someone accused of rape is tried in the court of public opinion long before they get to meet the judge?

    You kindly quote Lord Neuberger’s recent and excellent speech on open justice in your ‘squatting blog’:

    “Persuasion should be based on truth rather than propaganda. It is one thing to disagree with a judgment, to disagree with a law and to campaign to change the law, but it is another thing to misstate what was said in a judgment, or to misstate the law… Justice to be truly open must join its voice to the chorus; and must ensure that inaccurate or misleading reporting cannot gain traction.”

    Which is all well and good – but if the judgement cannot be reported – if the evidence cannot be presented, then how can people be expected to understand or agree with the judgement or the law (or respect the system if it operates in secret)? By preventing open discussion you make space for propaganda, for inaccurate and misleading reporting – and for fear.

    If super injunctions have a place in law then their use should be carefully regulated – possibly by requiring the application for the injunction to go to a higher court or a review panel. They should also, where possible, be time limited to the period of any trial – so that people can understand why they have been used.

    1. Corrupted Mind says:


      Many people perceive the Trafigura case to be a panacea for free speech, however looked at forensically the question remains whether it was in fact beneficial to society for a Member of Parliament to act in a way which defeated a legally obtained injunction preventing the disclosure of the parties (regardless how odious that party might be). The object of the injunction was not to decide the matter but merely to place the case in stasis until the substantive case was heard (which would have, of course, been accessible to the public).

      This same principle applies to the celebrity privacy cases, you say the injunctions granted in these cases are “nonsense” – a judge might agree and decide the case in the newspapers favour. The critical issue is whether the subject of the story has protection until the court has decided that matter. As a matter of principle, no one has yet proffered a compelling reason why courts shouldn’t strive to protect individuals until their substantive cases are heard. The courts are waking up to the fact that these cases should be disposed of quickly as the “societal harm” of restraint is finely balanced against the individuals rights, but again there is no reason why the use of the injunction is fundamentally wrong.

      Turning to your larger point, i.e. why individuals in criminal cases seem to be “less protected” than the parties to a civil action? It is a fascinating point. Some would point to the fact that, a criminal case is the individual versus the state and as a consequence requires a greater degree of openness because it is only through that openness might a defendant achieve any equality of arms (as openness allows scrutiny and ensures that justice can be “seen to be done”). But, I admit its not an easy square to circle.

      Lastly, as regards your ideas for “super injunctions” – my first suggestion is that we stop giving injunctions silly names. There is nothing “super” or “hyper” about any of these injunctions – the media label serves a role only to make them sound even more extraordinary (and therefore “evil”) than a normal injunction – which they are not. Secondly, the idea that they need any further “regulation” is fanciful – the test for obtaining any injunction is pretty onerous and for every injunction granted I would guess that thousands are denied. Thirdly, the idea that the decision concerning an injunction application should go any higher than the High Court is a non-starter. Court of Appeal judges and Supreme Court judges are busy enough than having to hear petty interim applications. A review panel is the last refuge of those without ideas: who would sit on these panels? How would it define which applications they should hear? How would this panel not be judicially reviewable by the High Court using its inherent jurisdiction? – the more I think about this idea the quicker it disintegrates. Finally, in respect of time limited – all injunctions already are – hence their “interim” status. Their purpose is to preserve the status quo until the substantive hearing. Of course the wider media pretends as though these injunctions last forever and a day.

      1. Huw Sayer says:

        Thank you for clearing up those points – you do a very good job of defending what (to a layman) at times seems indefensible.

        Perhaps the courts should do more to explain their thinking (particularly your point about all injunctions being interim) – and clearly indicate when these injunctions are lifted.

        Until the courts make a more compelling case (as you have done) for injunctions, the press will get away with scaremongering. For instance, this morning we ‘learn’ that there is an injunction that (apparently) prevents a defendant discussing their case with anyone, even a lawyer – so how can they mount a credible defence if they cannot engage a lawyer?

        I am sure there is more to this case (and others like it) than the press knows or allows – but without a counter argument from the courts these urban myths will continue to undermine respect for our legal system (and bring about many more ‘Victor Meldrew’ responses from the blogosphere).

        PS: A case when an injunction would have been beneficial was during the Bristol murder investigation when the press seemed intent on hounding a man who apparently turned out to be innocent.

  3. Corrupted Mind says:

    Injunctions? Super Injunctions? Hyper Injunctions? Whilst this makes for explosive headlines in newspapers – the courts have *always* possessed a power to prevent parties from operating in a manner that might prejudice a case. An injunction is, for all intents and purposes an order that prevents a party from doing something they might ordinary be allowed to do. Regrettably, what some people are forgetting (or in the case of certain media outlets, consciously ignoring) is that in some cases disclosure of the facts of the case can be prejudicial to the outcome of a case (to digress briefly the real scandal is that the High Courts ICT is so poor that it has no way of tracking how many injunction applications exist or have gone through the system).

    Are these types of “injunction” really as “contemptible” as @HuwSayer suggests? Well, erm – No. The non-disclosure “super” injunction has long served a legitimate role in our legal system, e.g. IP disputes, where two competitors might wish to remain anonymous so as not to inform their competitors about what they are developing or family disputes (in a number of ways so lengthy and obvious that it needs not be listed). It was only when newspapers were restrained in this way did they start to be a bad thing.

    The purpose of the so called hyper injunction is to prevent the parties from prejudicing their case through disclosure. If the court had already granted anonymisation and non-disclosure requirements and they (rightly or wrongly) believed that their was enough political fire in the case that an MP might raise the matter in Parliament the judge is perfectly entitled to grant such an injunction to preserve justice – this is the courts role and any political interference would put our entire constitution in disrepute. A judge might hope that the sub-judice rule would prevent an MP from acting in such a disreputable way – however as is often written about judgments and orders – they are not for the media, they are for the parties and it is absolutely imperative that they understand what their responsibilities are – which explains why an order may be drafted to explicitly prevent disclosure to MP’s.

    1. Huw Sayer says:

      Thank you – see my reply to myself above!

  4. Huw Sayer says:

    PS: Civil super injunctions are contemptible and make the courts and our justice system appear so.

    1. Huw Sayer says:

      I accept Corrupted Mind’s response below – and stand corrected. Learning my lesson that knee-jerk responses to emotive issues rarely produce good arguments.

  5. Huw Sayer says:

    If even the injunction is hidden how can anyone legitimately challenge the injunction? Secret trials undermine public trust in the rule of law – secret evidence is no evidence at all since there is no effective way of judging the validity of that evidence except in open court.

    Injunctions in a few serious criminal cases may be appropriate (to protect witnesses or those convicted from reprisals) – however I can see no excuse for such super injunctions in civil cases. If someone’s public reputation depends on us not knowing what they have done, then surely their reputation is effectively a shame and it is in the public interest for that sham to be exposed?

  6. Stephen says:

    On the subject of “justice” being administered in secret I recall Michael Howard, the then Home Secretary, refusing to allow a criminal case to go to appeal on the ground that he was in possession of secret evidence about the case. There was, indeed, “something of the night” about him.

  7. ObiterJ says:

    He was careful to avoid discussion of any “active” cases (sub judice rule by which Parliament voluntarily avoids discussing cases before the courts). The Chairman of the Meeting (Peter Bone MP) was at pains to ensure this did not happen. Great to see an MP raising these issues though. All power to his elbow.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




7/7 Bombings 9/11 A1P1 Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology birds directive blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity circumcision citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Cologne Commission on a Bill of Rights common buzzard common law communications competition confidentiality confiscation order conscientious objection consent conservation constitution contact order contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Criminal Legal Aid criminal records Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty declaration of incompatibility defamation DEFRA Democracy village deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention devolution Dignitas dignity Dignity in Dying diplomacy director of public prosecutions disability Disability-related harassment disciplinary hearing disclosure Discrimination Discrimination law disease divorce DNA doctors does it matter? domestic violence Dominic Grieve don't ask don't ask don't tell don't tell Doogan and Wood double conviction DPP guidelines drones duty of care ECHR economic and social rights economic loss ECtHR Education election Employment Environment environmental information Equality Act Equality Act 2010 ethics Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice european disability forum European Sanctions Blog Eurozone euthanasia evidence Exclusion extra-jurisdictional reach of ECHR extra-territoriality extradition extradition act extradition procedures extradition review extraordinary rendition Facebook Facebook contempt facial recognition fair procedures Fair Trial faith courts fake news Family family courts family law family legal aid Family life fatal accidents act Fertility fertility treatment FGM fisheries fishing rights foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Association Freedom of Expression freedom of information Freedom of Information Act 2000 freedom of movement freedom of speech free speech game birds gangbo gang injunctions Garry Mann gary dobson Gary McFarlane gay discrimination Gay marriage gay rights gay soldiers Gaza Gaza conflict Gender General Dental Council General Election General Medical Council genetic discrimination genetic engineering genetic information genetics genetic testing Google government Grenfell grooming Gun Control gwyneth paltrow gypsies habitats habitats protection Halsbury's Law Exchange hammerton v uk happy new year harassment Hardeep Singh Haringey Council Harkins and Edwards Health healthcare health insurance Heathrow heist heightened scrutiny Henry VII Henry VIII herd immunity hereditary disorder High Court of Justiciary Hirst v UK HIV HJ Iran HM (Iraq) v The Secretary of state for the home department [2010] EWCA Civ 1322 Holder holkham beach holocaust homelessness Home Office Home Office v Tariq homeopathy hooding Hounslow v Powell House of Commons Housing housing benefits Howard League for Penal Reform how judges decide cases hra damages claim Hrant Dink HRLA HS2 hs2 challenge hts Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority human genome human rights Human Rights Act Human Rights Act 1998 human rights advocacy Human rights and the UK constitution human rights commission human rights conventions human rights damages Human Rights Day human rights decisions Human Rights Information Project human rights news Human Rights Watch human right to education human trafficking hunting Huntington's Disease HXA hyper injunctions Igor Sutyagin illegality defence immigration Immigration/Extradition Immigration Act 2014 immigration appeals immigration detention immigration judge immigration rules immunity increase of sanction India Indonesia Infrastructure Planning Committee inherent jurisdiction inherited disease Inhuman and degrading treatment injunction Inquest Inquests insult insurance insurmountable obstacles intelligence services act intercept evidence interception interests of the child interim remedies international international conflict international criminal court international humanitarian law international human rights international human rights law international law international treaty obligations internet internet service providers internment internship inuit investigation investigative duty in vitro fertilisation Iran iranian bank sanctions Iranian nuclear program Iraq Iraqi asylum seeker Iraq War Ireland irrationality islam Israel Italy iTunes IVF ivory ban jackson reforms Janowiec and Others v Russia ( Japan Jason Smith Jeet Singh Jefferies Jeremy Corbyn jeremy hunt job Jogee John Hemming John Terry joint enterprise joint tenancy Jon Guant Joseph v Spiller journalism judaism judges Judges and Juries judging Judicial activism judicial brevity judicial deference judicial review Judicial Review reform judiciary Julian Assange jurisdiction jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Act Justice and Security Bill Justice and Security Green Paper Justice Human Rights Awards JUSTICE Human Rights Awards 2010 just satisfaction Katyn Massacre Kay v Lambeth Kay v UK Ken Clarke Ken Pease Kerry McCarthy Kettling Kings College Klimas koran burning Labour Lady Hale lansley NHS reforms LASPO Law Commission Law Pod UK Law Society Law Society of Scotland leave to enter leave to remain legal aid legal aid cuts Legal Aid desert Legal Aid Reforms legal blogs Legal Certainty legal naughty step Legal Ombudsman legal representation legitimate expectation let as a dwelling Leveson Inquiry Levi Bellfield lewisham hospital closure lgbtq liability Libel libel reform Liberal Democrat Conference Liberty libraries closure library closures Libya licence conditions licence to shoot life insurance life sentence life support limestone pavements limitation lisbon treaty Lithuania Litigation litvinenko live exports local authorities locked in syndrome london borough of merton London Legal Walk London Probation Trust Lord Bingham Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Blair Lord Goldsmith lord irvine Lord Judge speech Lord Kerr Lord Lester Lord Neuberger Lord Phillips Lord Rodger Lord Sumption Lord Taylor LSC tender luftur rahman machine learning MAGA Magna Carta mail on sunday Majority Verdict Malcolm Kennedy malice Margaret Thatcher Margin of Appreciation margin of discretion Maria Gallastegui marriage material support maternity pay Matthew Woods Mattu v The University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust [2011] EWHC 2068 (QB) Maya the Cat Mba v London Borough Of Merton McKenzie friend Media and Censorship Medical medical liability medical negligence medical qualifications medical records medicine mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Capacity Act 2005 Mental Health mental health act mental health advocacy mental health awareness Mental Health Courts Mental illness merits review MGN v UK michael gove Midwives migrant crisis Milly Dowler Ministerial Code Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice cuts misfeasance in public office modern slavery morality morocco mortuaries motherhood Motor Neurone disease Moulton Mousa MP expenses Mr Gul Mr Justice Eady MS (Palestinian Territories) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department murder murder reform Musician's Union Muslim NADA v. SWITZERLAND - 10593/08 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1691 naked rambler Naomi Campbell nationality National Pro Bono Week national security Natural England nature conservation naturism Nazi negligence Neuberger neuroscience Newcastle university news News of the World new Supreme Court President NHS NHS Risk Register Nick Clegg Nicklinson Niqaab Noise Regulations 2005 Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance nursing nursing home Obituary Occupy London offensive jokes Offensive Speech offensive t shirt oil spill olympics open justice oppress OPQ v BJM orchestra Osama Bin Laden Oxford University paramountcy principle parental rights parenthood parking spaces parliamentary expenses parliamentary expenses scandal Parliamentary sovereignty Parliament square parole board passive smoking pastor Terry Jones patents Pathway Students Patrick Quinn murder Pensions persecution personal data Personal Injury personality rights perversity Peter and Hazelmary Bull PF and EF v UK Phil Woolas phone hacking phone taps physical and mental disabilities physician assisted death Pinnock Piracy Plagiarism planning planning human rights planning system plebgate POCA podcast points Poland Police police investigations police liability police misconduct police powers police surveillance Policy Exchange report political judges Politics Politics/Public Order poor reporting Pope Pope's visit Pope Benedict portal possession proceedings power of attorney PoW letters to ministers pre-nup pre-nuptial Pre-trial detention predator control pregnancy press press briefing press freedom Prince Charles prince of wales princess caroline of monaco principle of subsidiarity prior restraint prison Prisoners prisoners rights prisoners voting prisoner vote prisoner votes prisoner voting prison numbers Prisons prison vote privacy privacy injunction privacy law through the front door Private life private nuisance private use proceeds of crime Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecution Protection of Freedoms Act Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest protest camp protest rights Protocol 15 psychiatric hospitals Public/Private public access publication public authorities Public Bodies Bill public inquiries public interest public interest environmental litigation public interest immunity Public Order Public Sector Equality Duty putting the past behind quango quantum quarantine Queen's Speech queer in the 21st century R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 895 R (on the application of) v The General Medical Council [2013] EWHC 2839 (Admin) R (on the application of EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2569 (Admin) R (on the application of G) v The Governors of X School Rabone and another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 race relations Rachel Corrie Radmacher Raed Salah Mahajna Raed Saleh Ramsgate raptors rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion resuscitation RightsInfo right to die right to family life right to life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials security services sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa south african constitution Spain special advocates spending cuts Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance swine flu Syria Tax Taxi technology Terrorism terrorism act tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine unfair consultation universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vaccination vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: