(Not-super) injunction, and names

Heartfeltdawn

JerkMoans said:

Heartfeltdawn said:

Had GD told Hain that they were the lawyers representing the Telegraph, then that may well have been breaking the terms of the injunction against the Telegraph. Hain as an external adviser was not involved in the case so why would he have been told? 

EDIT: Actually I'm going to change my mind and say that Hain has been a bit of a pillock. 

http://www.5rb.com/news/abc-v-telegraph-media-group-court-of-appeal-grants-interim-injunction-against-the-telegraph/

Sadly I now suspect this will now take away from the actual perp at the centre of this. 

Hain asserted that he had considered 'all the circumstances' before deciding to exercise Parliamentary privilege to spill the beans.

He later claimed not to have had the first clue that Gordon Dadds LLP, to which firm he is a paid consultant, were the solicitors instructed by the Telegraph.

Trouble is, the firm's name is in bold on the first page of the (open, and anonymised, before anyone gets excited) Judgment.  See https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/abc-v-telegraph-media-open-Judgment-approved-final-181023.pdf

One might imagine anyone considering all the circumstances would (a) have read it, and (b) spotted the name of the very firm to which they are a paid consultant on page 1.  Before using arcane parliamentary conventions to circumvent court orders.  Which is why Hain is looking like a bit of a chump.

Yes, I've read that now after making my earlier edit. 

It is reasonable to think that Hain should have read that. Undoubtedly looking a bit daft. 

ICBM

digitalscream said:

I know, I'm going on about it, but the whole experience made me fucking angry. I'll try to shut up now

I understand why, but I don't think the solution is to allow accusers to get away with blackmail - or in opposite cases for genuine perpetrators to be able to buy off victims - by the knowledge that there is a way of avoiding the full process of criminal law. Sorry for going on about it too .

digitalscream

ICBM said:

digitalscream said:

I know, I'm going on about it, but the whole experience made me fucking angry. I'll try to shut up now

I understand why, but I don't think the solution is to allow accusers to get away with blackmail - or in opposite cases for genuine perpetrators to be able to buy off victims - by the knowledge that there is a way of avoiding the full process of criminal law. Sorry for going on about it too .

I haven't look deeply enough into it, but...do we have any details on whether the NDA precluded speaking to the authorities, or just talking to the press about it?

ICBM

digitalscream said:

I haven't look deeply enough into it, but...do we have any details on whether the NDA precluded speaking to the authorities, or just talking to the press about it?

Nor me, but would an NDA even have any point if it didn't preclude speaking to the authorities? That would be just leaving a huge get-around.

digitalscream

ICBM said:

digitalscream said:

I haven't look deeply enough into it, but...do we have any details on whether the NDA precluded speaking to the authorities, or just talking to the press about it?

Nor me, but would an NDA even have any point if it didn't preclude speaking to the authorities? That would be just leaving a huge get-around.

Looking around, there seems to be some disagreement as to whether NDAs apply to speaking to the authorities to report crimes. In the US, they don't even apply to witnesses in court. Where they do most definitely apply is in speaking to the press or bringing civil actions.

Given that it's the publicity of an accusation which is most likely to destroy someone's life even if criminal action is never brought against them - perhaps if the accuser doesn't want anyone to look too closely? - I'd say there is very much a point in the NDA. And it would mean that the accuser can't talk to the press about it even if they do bring criminal action, until such a point as a "guilty" verdict is in.

littlegreenman

digitalscream said:

ICBM said:

digitalscream said:

I haven't look deeply enough into it, but...do we have any details on whether the NDA precluded speaking to the authorities, or just talking to the press about it?

Nor me, but would an NDA even have any point if it didn't preclude speaking to the authorities? That would be just leaving a huge get-around.

Looking around, there seems to be some disagreement as to whether NDAs apply to speaking to the authorities to report crimes. In the US, they don't even apply to witnesses in court. Where they do most definitely apply is in speaking to the press or bringing civil actions.

Given that it's the publicity of an accusation which is most likely to destroy someone's life even if criminal action is never brought against them - perhaps if the accuser doesn't want anyone to look too closely? - I'd say there is very much a point in the NDA. And it would mean that the accuser can't talk to the press about it even if they do bring criminal action, until such a point as a "guilty" verdict is in.

I "think" they would still be allowed to go to the authorities, if I understand this part of the court document linked to earlier correctly that is.

"In all five cases the complaints were compromised by settlement agreements under which substantial payments were made to the complainants ("the Settlement Agreements"). The complainants in each case had independent legal advice in entering into the Settlement Agreement in their case. There were terms in each of the Agreements under which both sides undertook to keep confidential the subject matter of the complaints themselves and various associated matters, including the amounts paid by way of settlement. The Agreements safeguarded the complainants’ rights to make legitimate disclosures (including reporting any criminal offences) if they chose. We will refer to this aspect of the Settlement Agreements as non-disclosure agreements ("NDAs")."

Chalky

littlegreenman said:

digitalscream said:

ICBM said:

digitalscream said:

I haven't look deeply enough into it, but...do we have any details on whether the NDA precluded speaking to the authorities, or just talking to the press about it?

Nor me, but would an NDA even have any point if it didn't preclude speaking to the authorities? That would be just leaving a huge get-around.

Looking around, there seems to be some disagreement as to whether NDAs apply to speaking to the authorities to report crimes. In the US, they don't even apply to witnesses in court. Where they do most definitely apply is in speaking to the press or bringing civil actions.

Given that it's the publicity of an accusation which is most likely to destroy someone's life even if criminal action is never brought against them - perhaps if the accuser doesn't want anyone to look too closely? - I'd say there is very much a point in the NDA. And it would mean that the accuser can't talk to the press about it even if they do bring criminal action, until such a point as a "guilty" verdict is in.

I "think" they would still be allowed to go to the authorities, if I understand this part of the court document linked to earlier correctly that is.

"In all five cases the complaints were compromised by settlement agreements under which substantial payments were made to the complainants ("the Settlement Agreements"). The complainants in each case had independent legal advice in entering into the Settlement Agreement in their case. There were terms in each of the Agreements under which both sides undertook to keep confidential the subject matter of the complaints themselves and various associated matters, including the amounts paid by way of settlement. The Agreements safeguarded the complainants’ rights to make legitimate disclosures (including reporting any criminal offences) if they chose. We will refer to this aspect of the Settlement Agreements as non-disclosure agreements ("NDAs")."

NDAs have no weight in Criminal Law.