"Well written, funny and wistful" - Paul Linford; "He is indeed the Lib Dem blogfather" - Stephen Tall "Jonathan Calder holds his end up well in the competitive world of the blogosphere" - New Statesman "A prominent Liberal Democrat blogger" - BBC Radio 4 Today; "One of my favourite blogs" - Stumbling and Mumbling; "Charming and younger than I expected" - Wartime Housewife
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Carter-Ruck writes to Mr Speaker on Trafigura
politics.co.uk links to a letter in which Carter-Ruck tries to justify its conduct over Paul Farrelly's question on Trafigura.
Time for someone to be brought before the bar of the House?
AIUI Parliamentary privilege was never in dispute (there was no suggestion that the question couldn't be asked and answered.
Was/is this definately an action for defamation though? On what I've read (ie about the contents of a leaked document) it may be more likely to be something breach of confidence/privacy related (at least in part).
Its much less clear that the general defence of qualified privilege applies in such situations.
If their interpretation was so wrong then why didn't the Guardian go ahead and publish?
5 comments:
"Time for someone to be brought before the bar of the House?"
For what?
Sadly, when using Firefox the link doesn't give us the C-R letter. I get a very fuzzy image, and the download link goes into a loop of re-directs.
They should bring you for the bar for the sad quality of your blog.
Hywel: Carter-Ruck need to have Parliamentary privilege explained to them.
Dreamingspire: It works fine in dear old Internet Explorer. Try clicking on the individual pages in the right-hand panel.
AIUI Parliamentary privilege was never in dispute (there was no suggestion that the question couldn't be asked and answered.
Was/is this definately an action for defamation though? On what I've read (ie about the contents of a leaked document) it may be more likely to be something breach of confidence/privacy related (at least in part).
Its much less clear that the general defence of qualified privilege applies in such situations.
If their interpretation was so wrong then why didn't the Guardian go ahead and publish?
Post a Comment