Hain questions legitimacy of charge
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A lawyer defending Labour MP Peter Hain against claims that he "scandalised a judge" has challenged whether the offence still exists.
David Dunlop, counsel for the former Northern Ireland Secretary, said the legal action against him had "highly significant" implications for free speech and questioned whether the case had any basis in common law.
The action, taken by the Northern Ireland Attorney General, John Larkin, stems from comments made by Mr Hain in his autobiography, Outside In.
The case has attracted criticism from both sides of the Commons, with more than 120 MPs signing a motion calling for the proceedings to be dropped. David Cameron said exchanges between judges and politicians were part of modern democracy and should be kept "as far as possible out of the courts".
At a preliminary hearing at Belfast High Court yesterday, Mr Larkin said that citizens were entitled to have confidence in the justice system. He declared: "The fair criticism of judges and judicial decisions is not only quite clearly a right, there are also occasions when there may be a duty to do it."
But while not arguing all criticism of judges was contempt of court, he said criticism which undermined public confidence in the administration of justice should not be permitted.
For Mr Hain, Mr Dunlop said he wished to examine whether the "archaic" offence still existed, and questioned whether the action complied with the European Convention on Human Rights. The case will be heard in full on 19 June.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments