Question
The Russell Brand verdict surprised nobody, and all those who allowed his behaviour to go unchecked should reflect on their own culpability. The truth is emerging also about Mohamed al-Fayed; David Walliams remained anonymous for years thanks to an injunction; and there are many similar cases. Following the attack by Brand’s barrister on journalists who reported similar allegations concerning different victims before the case began, what will the Government do to prevent these abuses of process, and stop the abusive injunctions and super-injunctions, which stop scrutiny, accountability and the work of the free press?
Answer
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for raising these important issues. All the perpetrators he named are individuals whom the Government have concerns about, and we are working with many of the victims and survivors directly. Just yesterday, I met yet another victim of Fayed who had come forward to me with serious allegations and concerns that the processes have not been appropriately followed. I reassure the shadow Secretary of State that the Government are determined to do all we can to ensure that anyone who is a perpetrator of these crimes is held to the full force of the law. That includes looking at what we can do regarding injunctions. He will know that applications to the courts for privacy injunctions are considered independently, and it would not be appropriate for the Government to comment; however, we are concerned about their use. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Courts and Legal Services is looking at what more we can do on strategic lawsuits against public participation injunctions—we have already taken action on non-disclosure agreements for sexual abuse cases, as the hon. Member will know—and to prevent abuse of process throughout the judicial system.8% vibes
Verdict: AMBER (28/100)
The reply only partly answers the question. On the first part, about action on barristers' conduct and attacks on journalists reporting pre-trial allegations, it offers general assurances about abuse of process and the law but names no specific measure. On the second part, about abusive and super-injunctions, it says the government is looking at options and names SLAPP injunctions as an area under examination, but commits to no concrete action. Both parts are hedged, so the person who asked would probably need to submit a follow-up for specifics.
How we got there
| Question item | Coverage | Specificity | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| What action the Government will take to prevent abuses of process of the kind described, namely a barrister's attack on journalists who reported allegations concerning other victims before a trial began. | Partially Addressed | Hedged | The reply only gestures at preventing 'abuse of process throughout the judicial system' and vows that perpetrators will face the full force of the law, without naming any action on barristers' conduct or on attacks against journalists reporting allegations before trial. The NDA reference in statement 11 concerns a different issue. |
| What action the Government will take to stop abusive injunctions and super-injunctions that restrict scrutiny, accountability and the work of the free press. | Partially Addressed | Hedged | The reply commits to 'looking at what we can do regarding injunctions' and names a specific area, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) injunctions, that a minister is examining. However, it only commits to looking at options, declines to comment on individual privacy injunctions, and offers no concrete action to stop abusive or super-injunctions. The NDA action in statement 11 is a related but different mechanism. |