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.

How this could escalate (BBC Injunction on Cash for Peerages)

The rumours are flying left and right at the moment. All the known characters must have some sort of claim to exposure in the media, so a case for not getting a fair trial ( as does just about every other arrest the media ever reports on ).

So what could be critical that it requires the Met to get the AG to apply for an injunction.

Surely the information will leak, and leak soon - if only on foreign media or the net. The Met must know this.

Then the whole business of trying to prevent its coming into the public domain will add to the credibility of that information - making a fair trial less likely, not more.

So perhaps there's some sort of time critical element here - if so the Met will need to move before Monday as the BBC may challenge the injunction.

Or there is something else involved here - like the influence of a foreign government which relates to national security ? If so its all going very Robert Maxwell. Do you follow me ? (Currently starting to look like I was well wide of the mark on this aspect )

I'm just wildly speculating - but the answer is probably staring us in the face here. What doesn't make sense is what we have been told so far....

Update: Iain Dale is wondering if the injunction isn't to avoid giving the CPS and excuse not to prosecute ...

Update: John Hirst ( who has comments below also ) has been talking to a contact near the BBC ..

"A source in London has informed me that it is close, very close. And, that the BBC was about to broadcast a story which the police intend to use as evidence in a prosecution. My source, reflected on Thatcher, and said that she was bad, but that this is worse, a lot worse. My source said, that we used to call Fleet Street the street of shame. Now it is Downing Street which is the street of shame. I find myself agreeing with my source who has close links with the BBC."

John is starting to feel sorry for those who are Labour supporters but not involved, but Man in a Shed's empathy goes only so far ...

Update: The BBC is now saying the injunction was concerning an internal email within Downing street - see here. Now given Downing street protestations of full cooperation with the police then why is this news ? Clearly there's a legal reason why we shouldn't find out until after a trial - or a decision not to prosecute by the CPS under Lord Goldsmith's guidance.