§ 2.45 p.m.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government why they sought and gained an injunction to restrain the Guardian and Observer newspapers from publishing information concerning Mr. Wright and his book and why other newspapers may publish that which these two may not.
§ The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone)My Lords, I understand that the action to which the noble Lord refers is sub judice. Although the Court of Appeal has given judgment on the interlocutory application, the substantive action is still before the court and remains to be heard. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, in these circumstances, I would not press the main point of the Question. It may be, however, that the noble and learned Lord feels able to answer the second part of the Question. This asks why other newspapers may publish that which the two newspapers referred to, the Guardian and the Observer, may not?
§ The Lord ChancellorMy Lords, that is a perfectly fair point. I did not answer the second part of the Question because, frankly, I did not understand it. Of course, it is true that other newspapers are not parties to the proceedings and are therefore not affected directly by the injunction. But it does not follow that they can publish anything they like simply because of that. If they threatened to do so, they might themselves be made the subject of proceedings. I cannot answer hypothetical questions.