unicornnews: PR dimension to super-injunctions

The big story in the media industry last week provides a valuable case study for those communicators trying to convince employers or clients that a PR approach can be better than litigation when trying to bury bad news, even if there is a legal claim under the laws of confidence that could stop newspapers from reporting on a tricky story.

Last week mainstream media attention fell on so called ‘super-injunctions’, a relatively new kind of court ruling which bans all media from reporting on a certain news story – normally on privacy or confidence grounds – and from reporting on the existance of the injunction.

The super-injunction under the spotlight was one secured by legal firm Carter-Ruck on behalf of London-based oil traders Trafigura, and related to a confidential report into allegations a ship they had chartered illegally dumped toxic waste into the seas off the Ivory Coast, allegedly leading to illness among some of the population who lived near the coast line. The injunction stopped papers, in particular The Guardian, from reporting on an internal investigation into the affair.

It became news worthy when Trafigura learned that MP Paul Farrelly planned to raise a question in the House Of Commons about the super injunction, and its impact on press freedom, and that he would name check both Carter Ruck and the oil firm in his question. The lawyers quickly issued a warning to The Guardian that if they reported on Farrelly’s question they would be in breach of the original super-injunction.

This put the story on a whole new level, because the media’s right to report on events in parliament has been sacrosanct for centuries, and it’s not for the courts to interfer with parliamentary protocol. The Guardian subsequently let it slip that it was in dispute with a legal firm over their right, or not, to report on a question due to be asked in parliament.

The Twitter-sphere went into hyperdrive and, as bloggers found the offending question in parliamentary papers and published despite Carter Ruck’s warnings, and with MPs piling in to criticise the legal firm and their clients, the lawyers quickly withdrew their claim and gave The Guardian the all clear to report the story in full.

It’s interesting in PR terms because, without the super-injunction, Trafigura would have faced some negative reporting in The Guardian, and maybe some other broadsheets, but would have almost certainly not found themselves under anything like the media glare that resulted from Carter Ruck’s perceived attempts to interfere with parliamentary convention. Legal attempts to avoid a tricky PR challenge resulted in a PR disaster.

Reflecting on the fracas, Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger wrote last week: [The textbook approach for dealing with tricky stories] has been blown away by a newspaper, together with the mass collaboration of total strangers on the web. Trafigura thought it was buying silence. A combination of old media – the Guardian – and new – Twitter – turned attempted obscurity into mass notoriety. This week’s Trafigura fiasco ought to be taught to aspiring MBAs and would-be journalists”.

Posted Monday October 19 2009 by Chris Cooke

Related categories: Legal news