What are superinjunctions and why was one imposed in Afghan case?
A regular injunction is a court order that prevents certain details of a case from being made public. A superinjunction prohibits disclosure not only of the underlying information but also of the existence of the order itself.
One of the earliest known superinjunctions was obtained by the oil-trading company Trafigura in 2009 to prevent the Guardian from reporting details of toxic waste dumping in Ivory Coast.
They have also been used by celebrities such as the footballers John Terry and Ryan Giggs to try to stop reporting about their private lives.
The Daily Mail said that after its reporter approached the Ministry of Defence (MoD) about the breach, the D-notice committee (formally the Defence and Security Media Advisory Committee) was activated, which advises the press on threats to national security. Compliance with the committee is not obligatory but the Mail said it agreed not to publish the story. It said the government applied for a binding court order after others became aware of the breach.
Ben Wallace, who was defence secretary at the time, told the BBC's Today programme that when ministers went to the high court 'we applied for a four-month injunction, a normal injunction,' and that he did not know why it was converted into a superinjunction in September 2023. He said his priority 'was to protect those people who could have been or were exposed by this data leak'.
Mr Justice Robin Knowles said in his 2023 judgment that he had gone further than what the MoD had requested. 'Although it was proposed that the order (not the hearing) should be in public and published on the court website, I have decided it should be in private and not published on the website, at least at this stage,' he said.
After Paul Rimmer, a former civil servant, carried out a review for the MoD, Mr Justice Chamberlain ordered on 26 June that the injunction be lifted from noon on Tuesday 16 July because Rimmer's conclusions 'fundamentally undermine the evidential basis on which [the courts previously] relied in deciding that the superinjunction should be continued'. This time there was no appeal.
In his review, Rimmer said: 'It appears unlikely that merely being on the dataset would be grounds for targeting. It is therefore also unlikely that family members – immediate or more distant – will be targeted simply because the 'principal' appears in the dataset. Should the Taliban wish to target individuals, the wealth of data inherited from the former government would already enable them to do so.'
The aim was ostensibly to prevent risk to life, but in a judgment in May last year ordering that the superinjunction be lifted – which was subsequently overturned by the court of appeal – Chamberlain said: 'It is fundamentally objectionable for decisions that affect the lives and safety of thousands of human beings, and involve the commitment of billions of pounds of public money, to be taken in circumstances where they are completely insulated from public debate.'
He said the superinjunction was likely to have an adverse effect on those not being relocated as they would not be able to react to any threat or benefit from public pressure on the government to do more for them.
In last month's final judgment, Chamberlain said: 'The assessments in Mr Rimmer's report are very different from those on which the superinjunction was sought and granted. The change is in part due to the passage of time … It will be for others to consider whether lessons can be learned from the way the initial assessments in this case were prepared and whether the courts were, or are generally, right to accord such weight to assessments of this kind.
Mark Stephens, a partner at Howard Kennedy and a trustee of Index on Censorship, said it might have been justified by the exceptional circumstances but added: 'The difficulty here is, I think you're only entitled to the superinjunction for as long as it is necessary, essentially to preserve life, and it's not clear that this didn't run on a bit longer.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
6 minutes ago
- The Independent
Two former traders have rate rigging convictions quashed at Supreme Court
Two financial market traders who were jailed for manipulating benchmark interest rates have had their convictions quashed at the Supreme Court. Former Citigroup and UBS trader Tom Hayes was found guilty of multiple counts of conspiracy to defraud over manipulating the London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (Libor) between 2006 and 2010. Carlo Palombo, ex-vice president of euro rates at Barclays bank, was found guilty of conspiring with others to submit false or misleading Euro Interbank Offered Rate (Euribor) submissions between 2005 and 2009. The Court of Appeal dismissed appeals from both men in March last year. They then took their cases to the Supreme Court. On Wednesday, the panel of five justices found there was 'ample evidence' for a jury to convict the two men had it been properly directed, but they had not. In an 82-page judgment, with which Supreme Court president Lord Reed, Lords Hodge and Lloyd-Jones and Lady Simler agreed, Lord Leggatt said: 'That misdirection undermined the fairness of the trial.' The jury direction errors made both convictions unsafe, Lord Leggatt said. He added: 'Mr Hayes was entitled to have his defence to the allegation that he agreed to procure false submissions as well as his denial that he had acted dishonestly left fairly to the jury. 'He was deprived of that opportunity by directions which were legally inaccurate and unfair. 'It is not possible to say that, if the jury had been properly directed, they would have been bound to return verdicts of guilty. 'The convictions are therefore unsafe and cannot stand.' Mr Hayes was jailed for 14 years after his conviction in 2015, which was later lowered to 11 years after an appeal, while Mr Palombo was jailed for four years in 2019. Lord Leggatt continued: 'When the flaws in the directions given at Mr Palombo's trial are considered in combination, it cannot safely be assumed that, without them, the jury would still have been bound to convict Mr Palombo. 'Thus, his conviction also cannot stand.' He added: 'Accordingly, both appeals should be allowed.' The Libor rate was previously used as a reference point around the world for setting millions of pounds worth of financial deals, including car loans and mortgages. It was an interest rate average calculated from figures submitted by a panel of leading banks in London, with each one reporting what it would be charged were it to borrow from other institutions. Euribor was created along with the euro currency in 1999 as a benchmark rate of interest for transactions in euros. In 2012, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) began criminal investigations into traders it suspected of manipulating Libor and Euribor. Mr Hayes was the first person to be prosecuted by the SFO, who opposed his and Mr Palombo's appeals at the Supreme Court. The SFO brought prosecutions against 20 individuals between 2013 and 2019, seven of whom were convicted at trial, two pleaded guilty and 11 were acquitted. Mr Hayes had also been facing criminal charges in the United States but these were dismissed after two other men involved in a similar case had their convictions reversed in 2022.
The Independent
6 minutes ago
- The Independent
Traders found guilty of rigging interest rates have convictions quashed by Supreme Court
Former financial market traders Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, who were found guilty of benchmark interest rate rigging, have had their convictions quashed at the Supreme Court. Former Citigroup and UBS trader Tom Hayes was found guilty of multiple counts of conspiracy to defraud over manipulating the London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (Libor) between 2006 and 2010. Carlo Palombo, the ex-vice president of euro rates at Barclays bank, was found guilty of conspiring with others to submit false or misleading Euro Interbank Offered Rate (Euribor) submissions between 2005 and 2009. After the Court of Appeal dismissed appeals from both men in March 2024, they took their cases to the Supreme Court. On Wednesday, the panel of five justices found there was 'ample evidence' for a jury to convict the two men had it been properly directed – but they had not. In an 82-page judgment, with which Supreme Court president Lord Reed, Lords Hodge and Lloyd-Jones and Lady Simler agreed, Lord Leggatt said: 'That misdirection undermined the fairness of the trial.' The jury direction errors made both convictions unsafe, Lord Leggatt said. He added: 'Mr Hayes was entitled to have his defence to the allegation that he agreed to procure false submissions as well as his denial that he had acted dishonestly left fairly to the jury. 'He was deprived of that opportunity by directions which were legally inaccurate and unfair. 'It is not possible to say that, if the jury had been properly directed, they would have been bound to return verdicts of guilty. 'The convictions are therefore unsafe and cannot stand.' Mr Hayes was jailed for 14 years after his conviction in 2015, which was later lowered to 11 years after an appeal, while Mr Palombo was jailed for four years in 2019. Lord Leggatt continued: 'When the flaws in the directions given at Mr Palombo's trial are considered in combination, it cannot safely be assumed that, without them, the jury would still have been bound to convict Mr Palombo. 'Thus, his conviction also cannot stand.' He added: 'Accordingly, both appeals should be allowed.' A spokesperson for the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) said it would not be seeking a retrial. In a statement issued after the judgment, it said: 'Our investigation led to nine convictions of senior bankers for fraud offences, with two of these individuals pleading guilty and seven found guilty by juries. 'This judgment has determined that the legal directions given to the jury at the conclusion of trial were incorrect in Hayes' and Palombo's trials and for that reason their convictions have today been found unsafe. 'We have considered this judgment and the full circumstances carefully and determined it would not be in the public interest for us to seek a retrial.' The investigations The Libor rate was previously used as a reference point around the world for setting millions of pounds worth of financial deals, including car loans and mortgages. It was an interest rate average calculated from figures submitted by a panel of leading banks in London, with each one reporting what it would be charged were it to borrow from other institutions. Euribor was created along with the euro currency in 1999 as a benchmark rate of interest for transactions in euros. In 2012, the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) began criminal investigations into traders it suspected of manipulating Libor and Euribor. Mr Hayes was the first person to be prosecuted by the SFO, which opposed his and Mr Palombo's appeals at the Supreme Court. The SFO brought prosecutions against 20 individuals between 2013 and 2019, seven of whom were convicted at trial, two pleaded guilty and 11 were acquitted. Mr Hayes had also been facing criminal charges in the United States but these were dismissed after two other men involved in a similar case had their convictions reversed in 2022.
The Independent
6 minutes ago
- The Independent
British families of Air India crash victims ‘received wrong bodies' in bungled repatriation
Grieving British families of the Air India crash victims have received the wrong bodies to bury in a bungled repatriation scheme. A lawyer acting for the bereaved said that the remains of several victims had been wrongly identified, with one family forced to abandon funeral plans after allegedly being told the coffin contained a different, unidentified body. Only one passenger survived when the Air India flight 171 lost power and crashed into a building, seconds after departing Ahmedabad for London Gatwick. Cockpit audio recovered from the flight recorders shows the plane's junior first officer, Clive Kunder, asking its captain, Sumeet Sabharwal, why he had flipped the switches, starving the engines of fuel, according to a number of international media reports citing sources in the investigation. Of the 261 passengers and crew members who died, 52 were Britons. James Healy-Pratt, a lawyer representing several British families, said that the remains of at least 12 British victims had been repatriated. He told the Daily Mail: 'I've been sitting down in the homes of these lovely British families over the last month, and the first thing they want is their loved ones back. But some of them have got the wrong remains and they are clearly distraught over this. 'It has been going on for a couple of weeks and I think these families deserve an explanation.' In another instance, it has been reported that the remains of more than one person were put into a single coffin, and had to be separated before the funeral. Many of those killed were buried or cremated shortly afterwards in line with Hindu, Muslim and other religious customs. Due to the nature of the crash, which saw temperatures reach 1,500C as a large fireball engulfed the area, many of the victims had been burnt beyond recognition. This meant that many families received their loved one's remains from the Civil Hospital in a plastic container, after being asked to supply DNA samples to help with the identification process. However, the mishandling of repatriations was only uncovered when Dr Fiona Wilcox, the senior coroner for inner west London, sought to verify their identities by matching them with DNA from their families. Mr Healy-Pratt continued: 'If [it] isn't their relative, the question is, who is it in that coffin? Presumably, it's another passenger, and their relatives have been given the wrong remains. 'The coroner also has a problem because she has an unidentified person in her jurisdiction.' As a result, Sir Keir Starmer is expected to raise concerns over the errors during a meeting with his Indian counterpart, Narendra Modi, during his state visit to the UK this week.
