Shhh!
Published:Sunday | February 20, 2011 | 12:00 AM
Barbara Gayle, Staff Reporter
A GAG order issued by a Supreme Court judge banning the publication of a high profile civil case has caused raised eyebrows in judicial and media circles.
Several restraining orders were granted this month against a defendant in the case following an ex parte application brought by the claimant.
In the ruling the Judge stated that: "An order is granted that except for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, the defendant or anyone else with knowledge of this order must not directly or indirectly inform anyone of these proceedings or the contents of this order.
"If you fail to comply with the terms of this order you will be in contempt of court and may be liable to be imprisoned or have your assets confiscated," the judge said.
One lawyer told The Sunday Gleaner that such an the order meant that not even the suit which was filed or anything relating to it must be disclosed or published.
Another senior lawyer said he had never heard of such an order.
He argued that based on the order it would appear that even the name of the judge cannot be mentioned.
"Once a suit is filed, it is public domain and there should be no secrecy about the contents of the document except it threatens national security or there are issues relating to a young child," the lawyer added.
The lawyer said an order could be made that certain aspects of the case should not be published so as to protect confidential information but he said he found it unusual that disclosures cannot be made that the suit has been filed or that restraining orders have been granted.
"I still cannot see why the restraining orders are to be classified as secret because once the other party is served with the court order then that should no longer be a secret, " another lawyer said.
"Everyone knows that in a libel case the libel cannot be repeated but there can be no harm for the media to report that one party has filed a suit against another party arising from an article that was published on a particular date," one lawyer explained.
Another lawyer, who was asked to comment on the issue, said he would first have to see the documents, but he too added that he could see no injustice if it was reported that a particular suit was filed in the Supreme Court.