Lift this injunction and reveal the facts
It is excellent news that the Government intends to launch a review of non-disclosure agreements within the coming weeks, with the goals of making it illegal to use NDAs to suppress allegations of a criminal nature and helping employees better understand their rights in relation to them. NDAs can have useful commercial application, but should not be used to bury accusations of harassment. The
Telegraph has revealed that one prominent businessman, named in Parliament as Sir Philip Green, has used NDAs to silence allegations of harassment – and we would love to publish the full details of this story, but for an injunction slapped on us by the Appeal Court.
The time has come to lift that injunction. If the businessman involved believes he has done nothing wrong then why not do so? Put out all the facts and let the public judge. It’s risible to try to control information this way in the digital age, and the Court’s support of the injunction was another troubling example of judges backing secrecy over transparency – although it should be stressed that not that all judges agreed with it. The High Court previously determined that there was a public interest to be served by publication in this particular circumstance – and that’s the decision the Appeal Court overturned, determining that contracts, even ones which seek to mask alleged wrongdoing, are more important than airing matters which, the court accepted, inform debate in a democratic society.
Some appear to take the view that the Appeal Court was right and this newspaper should not continue to seek full disclosure. This is a classic example of unjustified deference towards the establishment. Courts can get things wrong, and that the Appeal Court contradicted the High Court suggests disagreement exists even among judges. It’s the right and duty of the press to investigate the powerful without fear, so that ultimately the people can make a decision for themselves. Not only should the businessman at the heart of this story lift the injunction but it should never have been granted – and NDAs should not be exploited as an opportunity to sweep serious allegations under the carpet.