Orci som nngancon 14 02teber 2000 Most URGENT ‘Te Right Honourable John Bercow Speaker ofthe House of Commons House of Commons London SWIA 0A Carter- Dear sie Trai Limited and Trafigura Behoor BV ie represent Trafigura Limtad and Trafigura Beheer BV (Trafigua’) and we wie this ltr on thelr and thi fis joint Bona “Trfigra is tho subject of a quston by Paul Farol, MP for Neweasteunder Lyme, submited on 12 October an he Paviament website, for witen ansiar by The inst of Juste today aul Farrelly (Newoasteunder Lyme): To ask the Secretary of State for justo, what assessment he has made of the efeciveness of legislation to Protect (a) whistleblowers end (o) press freedom following the injunctions bbtaind in the High Cour by () Barlaye and Fresiielde scketors on 70 March 2009 onthe pusticaton of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and () Trafgura and Cartr-Ruck solors on 11 September 2008 on the publcalon of the Minion report on the alleged ‘dumping of toxe wasn he wory Coas, commissioned by Traiura ‘As you will be aware, Mr Farellys question was then the subject of an ate published on The Guardian's webste onthe evring of 12 October and on the front age of the hard copy edlton of yesterdays newspaper under the hoadkne "Gltardln gagged from repring Parliament. As you are aio aware, that nn lad to substantial furor mocia ‘coverage both in The. Guardian ond. olsewhor Furthormoce, it was relerec to by a number of Members in te Chamber yesterday afternoon and agai today. Unorunatly, much of the ria coverage ~ bth in The Guardian and elsewhere hhas been highiy misleading, and we are concerned that ths has, tur, lod to Members of Parlament berg misitommed. Accordingly, the purpose of tis eter {to make clear the cortect poston, so that any flue consieraton of the matter by Partament can taka place on an informed bass ‘The Injunction Order hat, since 11 September 2009 an Order has baen in place against ‘The Guardan and Persons Unknown. It should also be stressed tha, since 18 ‘September 2008, The Guardian has consented to that Order remaining In place pending resolution ofthis matter. RuckCarter-Ruck Unit that resolution, it s not appropriate to comment on the substance ofthe (Order, other than to make clear that we and our clients are in no doubt that I was entirely appropriate for us to seek the injunctive ree in question; and that was Correctly consented to by The Guardian and granted by the high Court according to established legal principles. Cleary, the question of whether this mater is sub jude is eniely a mater for your discretion, although we would observe that we believe the proceedings to have been and to remain "active" within the definition of House Resolution CJ (2001-02) 194-105 of 15 November 2001 in that arrangements have been made forthe hearing ofan application before the Court is important to stress that contrary to the dear impression given by The Guardian's atl, there has never been any question of Trafigra appying fo an injunction that No 8echapplcatien has ever been mat. Furthermore, when the Ordar was mado (and endorsed by the High Cour) none ofthe partes orto Court ha in contemplation the pssibity ofthis mater beng raised in the UK Pariament,Iftey hag, thon the Order may well have been formula in such ‘| Way 2 fo allow for such epoting Be that as it may, a8 in fact formulated (and as The Guardian apparently accepted) reportng on the Parlamentary Queston which had been tabled for answer today would have slaced The Guarsianin breach ofthe Order. We should stress thatthe very first occasion upon wich Mr Farclly's Welton Question came to our atenion was when The Guardian faxed i to us on the afternoon of 12 Octobe, indeating (among other things) that they intended to ppubssh Information about Mr Farely’s Written Question that night In response we pointed out thatthe threatened publications would breach the terms of the injunction Order and indeed that, absent a variation to the Orders, \would place The Guardian in contempt of Court. That being the case, we sought ‘The Guardian's confrmaton that they would not so publish “The correspondence cuimnated in us confiming, that evening that we would take Instructions from our clerts on The Guartan's request to vary the tems of the Undertkings/Order, and “hat we would revert “ae toon as possible tomorrow” (Tuesday 13 October). Given that the Witen Queston was not due to be fnewered for another two daye, and given that The Guardian had ony raised the matter earler that aernocn, we believe thal response was entrely reasonable Despite (or perhaps beca.se of) that response, later that evening The Guardian ‘chose to publish their aticle online and subsequently on the front page of yesterday's hard copy. The folowing day, the partes duly agreed an appropriate amendment to the injunction Orders stating hat nothing in those Orders would prevent reporting of UK Parlamentary Proceecngs ‘Asis demonstrated by he subsequent media and Pariamentary reaction to, the ‘lear implication of The Guardian's coverage is that an injunction had been ‘btained forthe purpose of resticting publication of a report of proceedings in Parliament. As we nope is sles from what we say above, that Is simply notCarter-Ruck correct. We trust that we have made the postion cear; needless to say. please do not hesitate to contact us should you require any further information, Yours fittaty TI Copied individually to: ‘All Mambers of Parliament House of Commons London SWIA 048 ‘AI Members ofthe House cf Lords london ‘SWiA OPW