Saturday, March 03, 2007

BBC reports injunction concerns internal Downing street email

Still in the dark here - speculation and questions only below:

See the current post here for the BBC story. News sniffer has yet to pick up an revisions - but I'll check later.

Clearly the critical point is what it says. The person who sent it and the person(s) who received it know - as it seems must the police. However, what can the grounds be for not revealing it publicly.

You can bet the BBC's lawyers have thought through this posting, to stay within the law with a government that is not above throwing it weight about.

I'm not to clear on the legal issue here. Any jury will hear all the evidence, and I assume any legal defence would be aware of the prosecution case ( or is that just in the US ? ). Perhaps it bias based on hearing speculation about its implications and derived opinions that are key to creating some sort of bias here for a potential jury.

But there can hardly be a person in the UK who doesn't have strong feelings about Tony Blair and his NuLabour government. ( Will that be the case for saying no fair trial is possible - didn't save Saddam Hussein mind you.)

All this assumes the issue is potentially prejudicing any future prosecution. There may still be other options.

I attended a training course one which had a slogan on the wall which said - "When your confused it means your just about to learn something" - I think that applies now.

Must say I thought it would have to be a bigger issue than this to justify the legal pyrotechnics.

Update: The Sunday Herald seems to have a bit more light to shed here..

The Sunday Telegraph has a piece here which quotes from a media lawyer and also is suggesting that its the dynamics of the inquiry that have cause the call for the injunction, rather than the need to keep potential jury members in the dark.

The Mail on Sunday says its been threatened with a gagging order and that Goldsmith wanted the very existence of the original BBC gagging order kept secret.

4 comments:

james higham said...

"When your confused it means your just about to learn something"

Clearly, I'm jsut about to learn what this post is driving at, Man in a Shed.

Man in a shed said...

In short -I still don't understand why an injunction has been applied for or is necessary.

I see now reason, yet, why this should not be clearly explained by the authorities.

Eric said...

If it turns out that the leak was deliberate then things will certainly hot up and one then wonders whether someone could be liable on the receiving end of that leak . . .

On the other hand it could all be hot air. My thoughts are with Yates.

Man in a shed said...

I mentioned him when I led prayers at Church in Jan - to the raise eyebrows of left wing members of the congregation.