I'm a little confused on the story behind this since I originally read it: Trafigura dumped toxic waste and tried to reach a settlement regarding the dumpage. There was something that happened in Parliament and for some reason the Guardian wasn't allowed to write about the actions in Parliament because of a gag order.
If someone could be so kind as to answer the following questions:
Why was this in Parliament?
What was the question about this in Parliament?
Who requested the gag order?
Under what precedent was the gag order issued?
Would the courts likely have upheld the gag after an initial hearing?
4. An injunction prevents publication on any number of grounds, usually pending ongoing legal cases
5. An appeal -- the Guardian were set to appeal this afternoon until Carter-Ruck pulled out -- would almost certainly have gone in the Guardian's favour. But had the Guardian published before the injunction was lifted, the courts would definitely have upheld a prosecution against them, however.
If someone could be so kind as to answer the following questions:
Why was this in Parliament?
What was the question about this in Parliament?
Who requested the gag order?
Under what precedent was the gag order issued?
Would the courts likely have upheld the gag after an initial hearing?