Latest news with #CarterRuck
The Independent
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
I was once hit with a superinjunction and know how democracy dies in the dark
I was once smacked with a superinjunction … and lived to tell the full Kafkaesque tale. So I have a lot of sympathy for The Independent and other media organisations who, for nearly two years, have been forced to sit on a story which the British state didn't want told. My own experience of being gagged involved an unappetising company called Trafigura, which had been caught dumping toxic chemicals off West Africa in 2006. The company had shelled out more than £30m in compensation and legal costs to 30,000 inhabitants of Abidjan in Ivory Coast who claimed to have been affected by the dumping. Trafigura was keen to suppress the findings of an internal report, which could have proved embarrassing. So they obtained an injunction to stop The Guardian from publishing it – and then, for good measure, a further injunction to prevent us from revealing the existence of the original injunction. Welcome to superinjunctions, which were, for a while, sprayed around like legal confetti – often by errant footballers keen to keep their off-pitch escapades secret. The Trafigura case represented a novel application of the law to silence investigative journalism, seemingly contradicting the only dictum about the courts that most people are familiar with – the principle that the law must be seen to be done. Trafigura went one step further. When a Labour MP tabled a question about their use of a superinjunction, their lawyers, the unlovely company Carter-Ruck, even warned newspapers that they would be in contempt of court if they dared mention this parliamentary intervention. That was plainly ludicrous. Trafigura's legal pitbulls had lost sight of the fact that people risked their liberty and their lives to fight for the right to report what their elected representatives say and do. The super injunction collapsed like an undercooked souffle. And here we are 16 years later, discovering that, for 683 days, a tiny handful of lawyers, judges, politicians and civil servants had been silencing the press from telling the most extraordinary story of how a hapless MoD official caused a catastrophic data breach, putting the lives of thousands of Afghans in peril. The saga began in September 2023 when Mr Justice Knowles issued a gagging order contra mundum (against the world) forbidding anyone from revealing the leak, which named Afghans who had assisted the British forces in Kabul – and who might now be at risk of reprisals from the Taliban. The judge spoke in lukewarm terms about the importance of freedom of expression, but considered a blanket gag was essential to give MoD time to mitigate the harm. Since then, a growing number of journalists became aware of the story, and another judge, Mr Justice Chamberlain, held multiple hearings – many of them closed to outsiders – to decide how long the injunction should hold. At one point, about a year ago, he thought enough was enough, but was overruled by the Court of Appeal. It was only this week that the curtain was lifted and we were allowed to know that as many as 18,500 Afghans had secretly been flown to Britain at a cost variously estimated to be between £400m and £7bn (ie we don't know). British spies and special forces soldiers were also among the tens of thousands of people potentially put at risk by the catastrophic Afghan data leak. The clincher for Chamberlain was a risk assessment report commissioned by the current government from a retired civil servant, Paul Rimmer. Rimmer took a markedly different view of the ongoing risk and, said Chamberlain, 'fundamentally undermined' the case for the gagging order to continue. And so it was that, at midday on Tuesday, the jaw-dropping nature of what had been going on was finally revealed. Some might argue that, back in September 2023, there was a case for some kind of news blackout to give the authorities a chance to alert those most at risk, and to extricate as many people as possible. The question is, was it right to keep the gagging order in place for so long? Chamberlain clearly thought it was fine to discharge it a year ago. Was he right? Or was the MoD justified in arguing for more time? The first thing to be said is that the state (in the form of governments and Whitehall) will, in such circumstances, always argue for more secrecy. They will say they are acting in the national interest. But history tells us that the government of the day can often not be trusted in their judgment of where the national interest lies. In 1938, the government of the day attempted to use the Official Secrets Act to compel Duncan Sandys MP to disclose the source of his information about the state of anti-aircraft defences around London. Sandys later became defence minister. Historians now take a different view of those who opposed appeasement in the 1930s. Also in the 1930s, the appeasing government condemned the 'subversive' whistleblowers who were feeding Winston Churchill information about Britain's readiness for war. 'The damage done to the Services far outweighs any advantage that may accrue,' raged a now-forgotten war minister. He was wrong: Churchill and his informants were right. The government of the day tried in 1967 to prevent The Sunday Times, under its editor, Harold Evans, from publishing an accurate account of the case of former MI6 agent Kim Philby and his life as a double agent. The then foreign secretary, George Brown, having failed to prevent publication, publicly accused Evans of being a traitor and of 'giving the Russians a head start... for god's sake, stop!' It's not just a British instinct. In 2004, George W Bush talked The New York Times out of running a series of articles which revealed that the US National Security Agency [NSA] had been eavesdropping on the communications of Americans without any warrant. Bush told the editor: 'You'll have blood on your hands.' The editor spiked the articles. So Mr Justice Chamberlain was right to be a little sceptical about what the state's representatives were telling him during this two-year saga. As he pointed out, the potential sums of money involved (£7bn!?) and the sheer number of urgent migrants were entirely legitimate subjects of political debate. Even more troubling is the fact that members of parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) were also kept in the dark. In June 2024, a court of appeal judge suggested that the ISC might be allowed access to the issue. But the lead KC for the MoD poo poohed the idea. Lord Beamish, the ISC's chair, said the decision not to keep his committee in the loop was 'appalling'. He's right. The ISC is a statutory committee intended to scrutinise the work of Britain's spy agencies, including GCHQ, MI6 and MI5. Being told that the MoD doesn't trust them with 'certain pieces of information' calls into question the entire mechanism of oversight in the secret state. What else do the spooks not think they can be trusted to know? Ironically, the seven media organisations – including The Independent – that were in on the secret by the time the injunction was finally discharged all behaved impeccably in not breathing a word. It's a topsy-turvy world in which journalists can be trusted with knowing information that the ISC was denied. Lord Beamish is right to be furious – and no doubt his committee will want answers. They're not the only ones. There should be the fullest possible reckoning. As the saying goes, democracy dies in darkness.
Yahoo
20-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
GVG Takes Legal Action Through Carter-Ruck to Counter Alleged Disinformation Campaigns
GVG has instructed leading London law firm Carter-Ruck to formally address articles published by Commsrisk. LONDON, June 20, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Global Voice Group (GVG), a pioneer in regulatory technology and digital governance, has initiated legal action through top-tier law firm Carter-Ruck against Commsrisk. This action follows a series of strategically timed publications that GVG asserts are defamatory and threaten its international partnerships with governments and regulators in Africa, Latin America, and emerging markets worldwide. Misinformation threatens cross-border digital governance Over an extended period, Commsrisk and its editor have published a series of allegations which GVG vehemently denies. These publications, which have surfaced around significant commercial milestones and international tenders involving GVG, have raised concerns about alleged misinformation and its impact on public discourse in the sectors GVG serves. While GVG embraces fair scrutiny of its activity, it believes in upholding the integrity of factual reporting. The company is therefore taking steps to ensure that any public commentary about its operations meets basic standards of accuracy and fairness. "In an era of increasing digital accountability, trust is everything," said James Claude, CEO of GVG. "We welcome open dialogue and critical review of our work. However, we believe that any such dialogue must be rooted in facts. Misinformation doesn't just harm our reputation, it undermines the credibility of the digital infrastructure that countries rely on to fight fraud, increase transparency, and build self-reliant economies. We cannot remain silent when targeted by baseless accusations." GVG's commitment to digital integrity GVG invites all media and stakeholders to consult verified information and encourages responsible journalism that serves the global digital public good. Furthermore, the company reaffirms its commitment to transparency, ethical practices, and remains focused on empowering governments and regulators through trusted, inclusive solutions. GVG is prepared to pursue further legal remedies to ensure full accountability and defend the integrity of cross-border digital governance worldwide. About GVGFounded in 1998 and operating in 11 countries, Global Voice Group delivers ICT and RegTech solutions that empower governments and regulators through data-driven digital transformation. By leveraging Big Data analytics, GVG helps build compliant, inclusive digital ecosystems and turns critical sector data into actionable insights. Logo - View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Global Voice Group Sign in to access your portfolio
Irish Times
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
ICC prosecutor Karim Khan takes leave of absence until outcome of investigation into sexual assault allegations
The two deputy prosecutors at the International Criminal Court (ICC) are to take over the duties of the court's prosecutor, Karim Khan, who began leave of absence last Friday until the outcome of an investigation against him for sexual misconduct. In a brief statement on Monday, Mr Khan's London lawyers, Carter-Ruck, said he had taken leave because the media attention surrounding the allegations, which first emerged last year, had affected his ability to focus on his work. However, Edinburgh-born Mr Khan – who was named prosecutor in June 2021 – had 'no intention of resigning', the law firm underlined, rejecting all allegations of wrongdoing. 'Our client remains the prosecutor, has not stepped down and his no intention of doing so,' the statement said. READ MORE The allegations against Mr Khan are unprecedented in the 23-year history of the ICC, which is already facing existential challenges following the imposition of sanctions on Mr Khan by the US in February. US president Donald Trump imposed the sanctions in response to the court's decision to issue warrants for the arrest of Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes allegedly committed in Gaza. Both Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant deny the charges and reject the court's jurisdiction. According to a report by the Association Press (AP) news agency in recent days, the sanctions have meant the court is finding it increasingly difficult to function. It said Mr Khan's access to his Microsoft email account had been terminated and his bank accounts frozen. The several dozen American staff among the court's 900-plus employees have been warned that they risk arrest if they return to the United States. Some human rights organisations and NGOs have suspended their co-operation with the court for fear that US retaliation could shut down their operations worldwide. As a result, some investigations have stalled and staff are increasingly concerned about the institution's ability to withstand the pressure, the AP report said. The ICC has not commented. In general, NGOs have been reluctantly positive about Mr Khan's decision to take leave. 'Stepping aside helps protect the court's credibility and the trust of victims, staff and the public', said Danya Chaikel of the human rights federation, FIDH. Removing an individual those behaviour was under investigation, said Alix Vuillemin of Women's Initiatives for Gender Justice, 'may strengthen the office's ability to carry out its mandate with professionalism and public trust.' On Monday afternoon, the office of the prosecutor in The Hague confirmed that deputy prosecutors, Nazhat Shameem Khan and Mame Mandiaye Niang, had 'assumed leadership, management and administration of the office'. The investigation by the UN's Office of Internal Oversight Services is believed to be at an advanced stage.
CNA
16-05-2025
- Politics
- CNA
ICC prosecutor Khan on leave amid sexual misconduct probe
THE HAGUE: The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan, has stepped aside temporarily as an investigation by the United Nations into alleged sexual misconduct by him nears its end, his office said on Friday (May 16). The move is unprecedented and there is no clear procedure for replacing Khan. The situation creates added uncertainty for the ICC, which is already facing an existential crisis due to US sanctions over its arrest warrants for Israeli officials. Khan's office said the prosecutor had taken leave until the end of the investigation by the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services. In a written statement, Khan's attorneys rejected all allegations of wrongdoing. They said he said he had taken leave because media attention on the matter affected his ability to focus on his work but did not intend to resign. "Our client remains the prosecutor, has not stepped down and has no intention of doing so," law firm Carter-Ruck said. In a letter sent to his staff and seen by Reuters, the prosecutor said that he had been keeping his position under constant review. "In light of escalating media reports, I have made the considered decision to take leave," Khan said. "My decision is driven by deep and unwavering commitment to the credibility of our office and the court, and to safeguard the integrity of the process and fairness to all involved," he said. Khan had earlier ignored calls by NGOs and ICC staff to step down while the investigation was under way. Several of those NGOs on Friday hailed his decision to temporarily step aside as a sign that no one is above the law. "Stepping aside helps protect the court's credibility and the trust of victims, staff, and the public. For the alleged victim and whistle blowers, this is also a moment of recognition and dignity," said Danya Chaikel of human rights watchdog FIDH. Others said Khan's leave would not derail the ICC's investigations as the office of the prosecutor is not a one-man show. "In fact, removing an individual whose alleged behaviour may have fuelled a toxic work culture may strengthen the office's ability to carry out its mandate with professionalism and public trust,' Alix Vuillemin of the Women's Initiatives for Gender Justice told Reuters. The ICC has high-profile war crimes investigations under way into the Israel-Hamas conflict and Russia's war in Ukraine. At Khan's request, the ICC issued arrest warrants for President Vladimir Putin on suspicion of deporting children from Ukraine, and for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for alleged war crimes in Gaza. Neither country is a member of the court and both deny the accusations and reject ICC jurisdiction. The ICC's investigation into Israel's conduct led the US administration of President Donald Trump to impose sanctions on Khan, which the ICC president says have put the court itself at risk. Sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter, told Reuters that Khan had spoken to UN investigators last week in what was believed to be the final interview of a months-long outside investigation into the allegations that started in December. It was unclear when the probe would finish.
