David Locke reflects on the ramifications of the recent public intervention of Lord Hain in breaching an injunction
Leading legal figures including Lord Woolf and Lord Judge lined up to condemn what they described as the inappropriate use of parliamentary privilege by Lord Hain. However, in the face of questions regarding his motives, he has doubled down, refusing to either retract his statement or to apologise. The incident highlights acutely the dangers of a constitution which permits unelected peers—indeed, any parliamentarians—to subvert due process and the rule of law.
Contempt of court
On 23 October 2018, the Court of Appeal, led by the Master of the Rolls, handed down a judgment which had the effect of maintaining an interim injunction preventing the publication of certain issues. It is very pertinent to record that the court reduced in scope the wording of the injunction and indicated the necessity of a speedy trial, recognising that a delay in the publication of matters in the public interest was undesirable. It scarcely needs pointing out, save perhaps to Lord Hain, that this hearing was not and was never intended to
