Our courts must not be allowed to muzzle the press
THERE has, quite rightly, been much attention recently over the attempts by Russia, China and other foreign powers to interfere in our democracy. Last week, a report was published showing how Iranian and Russian government-funded tweeters were using social media to undermine the traditional stability of our politics.
There is, however, another threat to our democratic culture which is no less dangerous – but home grown. It is the ability of the rich and powerful to use the legal system to muzzle the press.
This has come to the fore this week with the granting of an injunction by the Court of Appeal to the businessman Sir Philip Green, to prevent the Daily Telegraph from publishing the results of its monthslong investigation into his behaviour.
Had the courts had their way and had the legal system operated as intended, we would not know that the injunction was taken out by Sir Philip. We would all still be in the dark.
It is only because one man, Lord Hain, named him using parliamentary privilege, which allows an MP or peer to say what they want inside the Houses of Commons and Lords without fear of being sued or prosecuted.
IT IS a worrying and dangerous state of affairs. Not, as some have said, because Lord Hain rode roughshod over the courts but because the courts are increasingly used by powerful people to block the accountability of public figures which is fundamental to democracy.
As Thomas Jefferson – the author of the US Declaration of Independence – wrote: “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
Jefferson saw that government – and by extension the powerful – could be kept in check only by scrutiny. And scrutiny required a free press – especially a press able to report issues and facts that were embarrassing to those in power but which the public needed to know precisely because of that. As he wrote: “The only security