The lawyer is an ass

In the matter of superinjunctions, Trafigura, Carter-Ruck, etc., I posted a comment over at the Wardman Wire. It awaits moderation. Here it is:

Would you care to consider whether, in granting an injunction which it is clear in advance will have implications for the reporting of Parliament, the judge ought urgently and as a matter of course to notify* the Parliamentary authorities and specifically the Speaker who is, after all, a legal officer in a particular sense, whose own ruling in the matter of public reporting would be germane to the very effectiveness of the injunction.

Mr Speaker ought, surely, to have all the information he needs in order to protect both the citizen legitimately needing the protection of the court and the right of the Commons to examine related matters whether in camera (it does happen) or otherwise.

It is Mr Speaker’s job to prevent mischief making by malevolent or axe-grinding individual MPs, as you suggest. In certain circumstances, as you obviously also envisage, he will need all the help he can get, including notice from the courts of any oncoming trains.

_____________

*Notify, not consult qua consult. That would bring into uncomfortable proximity the legislature and the judiciary.

The author over at TWW makes the point obliquely, and it has been made elsewhere, that those involved in the application for injunction may not have anticipated that it would have implications for the relationship between Parliament and people. In my view, they should have thought about it. These are the world's smartest legal brains with vast collective experience.