There are very few of us – individuals and corporate bodies – who want nasty stories about our activities to appear in the papers. And those of us who anticipate such an event and feel we are justified in protecting our privacy have the option to instruct specialist lawyers like Carter Ruck to do what they can in the British courts to bring that about. It is after all the courts, not national newspapers who administer justice in this country.

          In the case of Trafigura, there’s little doubt that they were at fault, and in due course, this would have emerged as a result of Paul Farrelly’s questioning in the House of Commons and the availability of parliamentary records online (aided by Stephen Fry’s relentless twittering). It is irrational to want to shoot Carter Ruck for being Trafigura’s messenger. In law everyone is entitled to defend his/her position.

          And it’s worth remembering that these kinds of super-injunctions aren’t only used by large sinful corporations.

          Sometimes journalists use them too – take the case of Andrew Marr last year [see: http://www.peterburden.net/archives/18], when he sought and was granted an injunction against the reporting of an injunction over a court case involving his private life – a protection of his privacy to which he was perfectly entitled. It’s not important whether or not he employed Carter Ruck (he may have done; I haven’t checked), but it was important that his lawyers could use this legal tool.

          It makes no sense to get excitable and decry a useful aspect of the law while lambasting those who take advantage of that law, on the grounds that sometimes evil-doers take temporary cover under it. And you can’t blame Carter Ruck for trying – especially when, as a result of the provisions of the 1689 English Bill of Rights, they failed.

Popularity: 16% [?]