Latest news with #gaggingorder
Daily Mail
2 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Grant Shapps accused of 'rewriting history' after former defence secretary says gagging order that prevented Mail revealing Afghan data leak could have been lifted... but he was the one who kept it in place
Grant Shapps was accused of 'trying to rewrite history' yesterday when he expressed 'surprise' the super-injunction had 'lasted so long'. The former defence secretary told the BBC he thought the draconian gagging order could have been lifted last summer – but the Daily Mail can reveal he was the one keeping it going. He also appeared to suggest it was judges who decided to keep the Speaker of the House of Commons in the dark. However, the Mail has the memo showing it was Sir Grant who blocked it. The super-injunction meant Mail journalists faced jail if they revealed the Afghan data breach scandal or even told anyone there was an injunction. In May last year, High Court judge Mr Justice Chamberlain ruled in secret that the 'continued stifling of public debate' was not justified and the injunction should be lifted. He said: 'Open justice is a cardinal constitutional principle', and warned that Sir Grant's unprecedented super-injunction would make people suspect 'the court's processes are being used for the purposes of censorship'. The then defence secretary responded by hiring one of Britain's most expensive KCs, Sir James Eadie, to overturn the judge's decision and prolong the super-injunction. Sir James told three Appeal Court judges in June that lifting the injunction would 'bring the house down', and they backed Sir Grant's bid to keep the public in the dark. The former defence secretary told the BBC he thought the draconian gagging order could have been lifted last summer – but the Daily Mail can reveal he was the one keeping it going as seen in a memo (above) Open justice is a cardinal constitutional principle' Mr Justice Chamberlain The secrecy went on until Tuesday this week, with the Mail and others spending two years fighting in locked courtrooms for open justice. Yesterday Sir Grant told Radio 4's Today programme he was 'surprised it's lasted quite so long', adding: 'I'd thought that it was probably going to come to an end last summer, the autumn perhaps at maximum.' Regarding whether the Speaker should be briefed, Sir Grant said: 'Who was briefed was decided by conversations with the judges', although he went on to acknowledge the judges were keen for the Speaker to be briefed. Yet an official memo dated November 16, 2023 – three months after the data blunder was discovered – records him as saying: 'I would not widen the circle by briefing others – so not agreed [to brief Speaker...].' A Whitehall source said: 'Shapps is trying to rewrite history. Everyone knows he was the one personally demanding to keep the super-injunction in place after the election was called last summer.' The database at the heart of the super-injunction scandal, seen by the Daily Mail, contains details of 18,800 Afghans Meanwhile Downing Street has defended current Defence Secretary John Healey over accusations that he misled Parliament. No 10 said his statement to the Commons on Tuesday, in which he said that 'to the best of my knowledge' no serving Armed Forces personnel were put at risk by the breach, was 'accurate'. Opposition critics have demanded he 'correct the record' after it was reported days later that MI6 spies and members of the SAS were among those named on the dataset.
Telegraph
4 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Super-injunctions have no place in our judicial system
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.
News24
09-06-2025
- Entertainment
- News24
‘Abuse of process': Durban cardiologist ‘gags' Carte Blanche
The KwaZulu-Natal High Court in Pietermaritzburg has granted an interim interdict, gagging TV programme Carte Blanche. The order stops Carte Blanche from broadcasting a programme about allegations of malpractice against a cardiologist. Allegations by patients of serious harm from allegedly unnecessary procedures were corroborated by independent experts, according to Carte Blanche's producer. A Durban-based cardiologist has secured a 'gagging order' against Carte Blanche, stopping it from broadcasting a programme in which patients accuse him of medical malpractice for allegedly inserting stents unnecessarily, GroundUp reports. Dr Ntando Peaceman Duze was given multiple opportunities for more than a week to respond to the allegations raised by his patients, which were corroborated by independent experts. But instead of responding, he launched an urgent application in the KwaZulu-Natal High Court in Pietermaritzburg on Friday. He gave Carte Blanche only one day's notice of the application. Carte Blanche opposed it, arguing that Duze wanted to 'bury these allegations for as long as possible if not indefinitely', and that he was seeking an 'unlawful prior restraint on freedom of speech and media'. But Acting Judge Mpumelelo Sibisi granted an interim interdict, stopping the broadcast, scheduled for Sunday, 8 June. Sibisi said Duze needed to be given an opportunity to file a replying affidavit and that Carte Blanche had put a 'gun to his head' to answer the questions posed to him. The judge said it would be appropriate to interdict the broadcast until the matter could be properly ventilated. He set the return date for 13 June. But unless the matter is given a special allocation, it may not be argued and finalised on that day. Duze, who runs his practice from Life Westville Hospital, initially cited two other cardiologists in his application, seeking orders that they must desist from making 'slanderous, insulting and defamatory remarks' about him. He put this down to professional jealousy because their patients had moved over to his practice. He alleged that the two cardiologists had instigated complaints laid by about seven of his patients with the Health Professionals Council of South Africa (HPCSA). He claimed that such was the professional jealousy, that he had been a victim of 'witchcraft', with chicken bones and red [Hindu] strings being left in the operating theatre. He said the cardiologists had told his patients that 'I had opened up their blood vessels' [an apparent reference to stent surgery], when it was unnecessary to do so. Duze said the complaints to the HPCSA were 'baseless'. The cardiologists opposed the application. Then on Friday, Duze's legal team withdrew the claim against the cardiologists, and tendered to pay their legal costs. The lawyers gave no explanation for this. But it came in the wake of Carte Blanche, in its affidavit, saying it had not interviewed the cardiologists. Instead, it had interviewed Duze's aggrieved patients on camera and done follow-up investigations, including obtaining independent medical corroboration based on the patients' medical records. Gag order Duze, in his application, said at any given time, he had an average of 50 patients at the hospital, all with heart conditions. He had never before been reported to the HPCSA and, if the allegations against him continued and were made public on Carte Blanche, it would severely harm his reputation, 'and may even lead to my financial demise'. 'Carte Blanche launched their own investigation and wants to broadcast a programme about this on Sunday, 8 June, which I want to prevent, because it will be filled with untruths and defamation,' he said. He added that Carte Blanche had approached him for comment, and asked 14 specific questions, which he was not prepared to answer because the issue was 'sub judice'. 'Once the [HPCSA] has completed its investigation, I will no doubt be willing to be interviewed and explain everything, because I will no doubt be cleared of these false allegations,' he said. READ | Mediclinic suspends Cape Town surgeon accused of workplace harassment, inappropriate patient conduct In her opposing affidavit, Carte Blanche producer Mart-Marie Faure said the application was an 'abuse of process'. 'It is unsustainable on the facts and law and constitutes an impermissible attempt to obtain a pre-publication interdict in circumstances where no case has been made out for one and such an extreme order is not justified,' she said. 'The complaints, which form the subject matter of the inset entitled 'Dr Stent', were initiated by his patients, who had all, they allege, been subjected to unnecessary surgical procedures. 'Independent medical professionals who have been interviewed or consulted all confirm that the applicant [Duze] undertook unnecessary surgery that has had adverse consequences for his patients.' She added: This has nothing to do with jealous colleagues. The complaints are driven by his patients who allege serious medical malpractice with the most grave medical consequences. Faure said she had engaged with Duze and his attorneys for nine days in an attempt to secure answers to her questions 'to no avail'. 'Carte Blanche was contacted by patients who claimed they were operated on unnecessarily. They consulted with other medical professionals who have said the insertion of stents was unnecessary. And in fact had caused heart disease when none was previously present. 'They will be required to take blood thinning and other medication for the rest of their lives. 'The HPCSA confirmed it received five complaints against the applicant. 'Life Healthcare has confirmed that it received information regarding allegations against the applicant from the HPCSA and has initiated an investigation.' READ | Decision on freezing Ithala's accounts delayed after urgent court bid as provisional liquidation looms Faure said the complaints were not sub judice and that the explanation the doctor would advance to justify his conduct in that investigation would no doubt be the same he would give on camera or in a written response. 'If media houses were required to await the finalisation of proceedings before any professional or regulatory body, the public would be deprived of timely, relevant information on matters of pressing concern,' she said. 'This is antithetical to the very purpose of a free press. 'The patients' accounts are based on their personal experiences and have been corroborated by independent experts. In every such story the person in respect of whom the investigation is conducted is unhappy. The remedy is to tell their side of the story, which the applicant has been repeatedly offered – not to gag the media.'
