UPDATE: Exclusive: Lawyers order Parliament to stop publishing super-injunction document MPs and peers have been warned that they face “diplomatic repercussions” unless they remove a document detailing aspects of one of Britain’s last remaining super-injunctions from the Parliamentary record. (thanks to Fern)
Last week I picked up the explosive Telegraph story that a Muslim Head of state "funded al-Qaeda and knew of 7/7 terror attacks." Blurring the line between "moderates" and "extremists."
"Archerfield Partners, a firm of solicitors acting for the ex-wife of an unnamed Asian head of state, made a series of threats against the joint Parliamentary Committee on Privacy and Injunctions, made up of 26 MPs and peers."...
The 13-page submission from Channel Islands businessman Mark Burby claimed he had been gagged by the “ex-spouse of an Asian head of state” in a super-injunction in 2009.
He said the “Asian head of state” was a “substantial” backer of al-Qaeda, and had advance warning of the suicide bombings on London’s transport system in 2005."
The threats warned of "the diplomatic repercussions of continuing to publish Mr Burby’s untested allegations about a friendly head of state in these circumstances." What country would want to continue to be a patsy for a friendly head of state trying to overthrow and destroy you? No, seriously.
Letter from Archerfield Partners to MPs and peers on the Joint Committee of Privacy and Injunctions Telegraph
Archerfield Partners, a firm of solicitors acting for the ex-wife of an unnamed Asian head of state, made a series of threats against the joint Parliamentary Committee on Privacy and Injunctions, made up of 26 MPs and peers.
Archerfield Partners is a small firm of specialist lawyers who claim to represent famous people including sportsmen, authors, actors and models. The firm's website says: "In addition to clients who are in the public eye, we act for clients keen to stay away from the glare of media attention."
The firm asked the MPs and peers to take down a submission from the committee’s website “as a matter of extreme urgency” and warned that its continued publication on the committee’s website would have diplomatic repercussions. Below is a copy of the letter:
28th February 2012
We refer to the email communication received last night from Nicolas Besly and copied to the Chair of the Committee. This email was in response to our communications of 24th, 25th and 27th February.
The position seems to be that the Committee now accepts that this matter is sub judice, that it has been misled (if only by omission) by Mr Burby; but that the Committee is going to continue to publish to the world information which (a) relates to an ongoing court case, and (b) is a prima facie breach of an interim injunction which is lawfully in place, at the risk of depriving our client of the only remedy which is of value to her in those proceedings.
Since we raised this matter with the Committee on Friday, The Daily Telegraph has published a story repeating some of the more despicable allegations of Mr Burby claiming reliance on the privilege created by the Committee’s publication; the Daily Telegraph has published a follow up story because we wrote to them pointing out our view that they could not publish in reliance on the privilege created by the Committee’s publication (this article included comment from John Hemming MP which naturally causes my client some concern given his ‘outing’ of Ryan Giggs); the Editor of the Daily Telegraph has tweeted on this issue; the blogger Paul Staines (who gave evidence before you) has named an Asian head of state as being involved in this story; and further tweets have identified our client.
We have no doubt that should the committee continue to publish then the injunction will be fully breached and further harm done to our client. There is a great deal more damage which could be caused to her, and which could be averted by the timely removal of this material.
We hope that the committee will appreciate the serious injustice being done. We also hope that the committee will appreciate the diplomatic repercussions of continuing to publish Mr Burby’s untested allegations about a friendly head of state in these circumstances.
In the circumstances where the Committee now accepts that this matter is sub judice; where there seems to be no suggestion that this matter raises issues that mean there should be any departure from the normal principle; and where the Committee can avoid further serious harm by removing the material in question, we again ask that the Committee does so as a matter of extreme urgency.
Please acknowledge immediate receipt of this letter and confirm that we will have a substantive response before 2.00pm today.
Archerfield Partners LLP