Friday, March 02, 2007

Cash for Peerages, That injunction update

Right then, here is the position as I understand it.

Firstly I stick by the previous article, unless the Attorney General wants to put me straight on anything, bearing in mind there is no injunction against me.

Reports indicate that the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, made an application for an injunction in the High Court, at the Royal Courts of Justice, in the Strand. The application was Intra parties, as in both the BBC and the Attorney General were represented, and before 1 high court judge. The hearing lasted some 2 hours, and the AG got his injunction. I suspect that the BBC filed their notice of appeal, which would have been mostly filled out before the hearing, as they left. BBC lawyers will be burning the midnight oil between now and Monday when they will hope to get an urgent appeal hearing before 3 appeal court judges, possibly but unlikely 5. I suspect given the nature of the hearing, if the original judge did not give permission to appeal, that the permission to appeal and appeal hearing will be one hearing. Expect a judgment somewhere between 4 ish Monday to Wednesday.

The BBC is now reporting that the AG applied for the injunction on behalf of the Metropolitan Police. This seems a bit odd. Normally the press can get away with reporting all the sordid details of a case right up until charges are laid, when it becomes sub judecea (sic) and they have to be very careful.

This fact alone will lead to huge amounts of speculation. For a start it seems to imply the police are close. It seems to say Yates of the Yard is very close to saying "your nicked my beauty!" to some poor unfortunate canary who will not doubt then sing like a bird!

The BBC is clear that it is miffed. In fact I would say double miffed. It claims the story is in the public interest, and it probably is.

I expect the BBC's appeal to be successful, unless it is interrupted by the news that someone has been charged.


Anonymous said...

Good to see you are showing Guido a clean pair of heels on this one !!

Benedict White said...

Anonymous, Many thanks, now all I need is for Tim Ireland to boycott my blog, and I'll be made!

amillionpieces said...

Nice post Benedict! Be good if we can see something undeniable, so that AG can't say the CPS won't bring charges.

Benedict White said...

amillionpieces, Many thanks. I await developments with baited breath (and beer in hand)

Chris D said...

Well done Benedict!
Your last paragraph was interesting, and I must admit that I am now wondering about a possible development along those lines sooner rather than later.

downfall? said...

Well done ! I was pretty far gone but this has certainly sobered me up.

John Dowson said...

Well done Benedict.
Intriguing and, if I'm honest, exiting times (for a Tory at least).

A lawyer writes .... said...

I'm surprised no one has asked on what basis the A-G could get an injunction - the only one I can think of is under the Contempt of Court Act 1981- i.e. because criminal proceedings must be very close.

Euan Husami said...

John Dowson, these may be "exiting times " for Tories, but they are exciting times for many of us non-Tory Bliar-haters.

Peter the Punter said...

A Lawyer Writes -

They have. It's on and the substance of it is that charges may be presumed to be imminent.

Many congratulations again to Benedict on his remarkable scoop.

David Heathfield said...

Very interesting but;

"bearing in mind there is no injunction against me"

Basic media law says that an injunction against one is an injunction against all. I'd tread carefully if I was you.

Benedict White said...

Re A lawyer writes, Many thanks, however as I understand it there is some common law provision where a prosecution is close, or indeed an injunction serious or on going.

Many thanks for all the other comments!

David, Many thanks for the tip. Perhaps they could email the injunction to me so I know where not to tread!

fr said...

I am your 14,000th customer and claim my prize.

Benedict White said...

fr, It is with regret that I have to inform you that I am still on 13,180' ish visitors!

Still, some one will break 14,000 and I suspect soon!

Nappie Salesman said...

Peter the Punter said...
A Lawyer Writes -
They have. It's on and the substance of it is that charges may be presumed to be imminent.
Peter , I have checked, it is Pitney Bowes

any more clues?

Benedict White said...

Nappie Salesman, refers to:

Sorry for the confusion!

Though there are updates here on the emial as well.