Saturday, October 27, 2018
The ill-advised use of Parliamentary privilege
I am not one of those who believe that Peter Hain's use of Parliamentary privilege to make accusations against Sir Philip Green is an abuse that should herald a restriction on the rights of Parliamentarians. Nor do I agree with lawyers who argue that using the rights afforded to MPs and Lords to breach court injunctions is undermining the rule of law. as reported in the Guardian.
However, I do think that Peter Hain was ill-advised to use the privilege afforded to him in this way, especially in the light of subsequent revelations that he is a paid adviser to Gordon Dadds LLP, the law firm that represented the Daily Telegraph in the Philip Green injunction case.
The legal process was still underway and it was likely that common sense would have prevailed. Parliamentary privilege in my view is there as a last resort, not as a means of frustrating the courts. It should be used to secure justice where that is not available.
As it is Lord Hain's intervention appears to be one arising from impatience rather than the result of considered deliberation on the merits of his actions.
Of course there is an argument that putting allegations in the public domain in this way may well help to forestall abuses of power by rich and powerful employers and open up a debate on the issue of harassment and how it may be prevented. There is some real merit in taking that course of action.
However, I also understand that some of those who had signed confidentiality agreements do not wish to have their names enter the public domain, do not want to re-visit some very distressing events in their past, and do not want an intrusive media poking around in their private lives. Did Peter Hain consider the wishes of these people when he stood up in the House of Lords?
Clearly, the courts did. That is why the injunction was granted in the first place, so that all these matters could be properly considered before the Telegraph would be permitted to publish its story. By overriding that process Hain has short-circuited those deliberations. That cannot be right.
However, I do think that Peter Hain was ill-advised to use the privilege afforded to him in this way, especially in the light of subsequent revelations that he is a paid adviser to Gordon Dadds LLP, the law firm that represented the Daily Telegraph in the Philip Green injunction case.
The legal process was still underway and it was likely that common sense would have prevailed. Parliamentary privilege in my view is there as a last resort, not as a means of frustrating the courts. It should be used to secure justice where that is not available.
As it is Lord Hain's intervention appears to be one arising from impatience rather than the result of considered deliberation on the merits of his actions.
Of course there is an argument that putting allegations in the public domain in this way may well help to forestall abuses of power by rich and powerful employers and open up a debate on the issue of harassment and how it may be prevented. There is some real merit in taking that course of action.
However, I also understand that some of those who had signed confidentiality agreements do not wish to have their names enter the public domain, do not want to re-visit some very distressing events in their past, and do not want an intrusive media poking around in their private lives. Did Peter Hain consider the wishes of these people when he stood up in the House of Lords?
Clearly, the courts did. That is why the injunction was granted in the first place, so that all these matters could be properly considered before the Telegraph would be permitted to publish its story. By overriding that process Hain has short-circuited those deliberations. That cannot be right.
Comments:
<< Home
Right or wrong , in this case Green can afford wealthy lawyers to act on his behalf. The rest of us have to do the best we can with the reduced legal aid that is handed out to us.
Post a Comment
<< Home
