Super-injunctions have no place in our judicial system

Telegraph

5 days ago

Super-injunctions are bad things. They suppress debate about matters that should be in the public domain by rendering unlawful even a reference to their very existence.
These gagging orders have been used by footballers and actors to block disclosures about their private lives. But they had never before been used to block debate in parliament until the fiasco over the leak of the Afghan resettlement list.
Ministers felt it necessary to seek an injunction to protect the lives of thousands of Afghan soldiers who fought alongside British troops during the war. Sir Ben Wallace, defence secretary in the Conservative government, said he did not apologise for making the court application and denied it was a 'cover-up' designed to spare departmental blushes.
But the type of injunction that was granted was all-consuming. It allowed vast amounts of public money to be spent without parliament being informed, let alone consulted, while keeping the most senior ministers in the dark. Even the judge, Mr Justice Chamberlain, called this unprecedented during hearings about the length of the gag.
Super-injunctions have strayed far from tittle-tattle about cheating celebrities into serious matters of public policy. By definition we do not know whether others exist, or cannot say if we do. At Prime Minister's Questions, Sir Keir Starmer dumped the blame for the debacle on to the Tories since they were in office at the time. However, he did not say whether he would have done the same had the leak happened on his watch.
Super-injunctions are pernicious devices that have no place in our judicial system. Secret justice is no justice at all.