Did Constitutional conventions take a hammering this week?

When Carter-Ruck, representing Trafigura, obtained an injunction against the Guardian from reporting a Parliamentary question tabled by Labour MP Paul Farrelly, they didn’t quite get the silence they wanted. The facts have been widely reported and the shitstorm in the press won’t leave Carter Ruck or Trafigura smelling of roses (not that they did before). The Guardian edged around the legal obstacle on Tuesday by reporting that it had been banned from reporting the question, which MP asked the question, who the minister was, and why the gagging order was imposed. The paper then left the rest to the blogosphere to enlighten the wider public about the redacted bits.

It quickly became apparent that Farrelly had questioned the implications for freedom of the press of an order obtained by Trafigura preventing the Guardian and other media from publishing the contents of a report related to the dumping of toxic waste in Ivory Coast…

"To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura."

After being accused of infringing the supremacy of parliament and facing a tidal-wave of popular online resentment, Carter-Ruck capitualted, allowing media to reveal that there is an injunction in place blocking the publication of the report commissioned by Trafigura. For an interesting discussion on the events that took place yesterday and the wider implications check out Charon QC’s podcast with Carl Gardner, ex government lawyer, a barrister and author of The Head of Legal blog.