As the Guardian has noted this morning:
The Guardian today lost a high court challenge to lift an emergency gagging order imposed on the publication of Barclays bank documents alleged to detail huge tax avoidance schemes.
I’m not surprised. It is a repeat of the stupidity of the British judiciary when faced with issues of substance of importance to their chums in the hierarchy of society. It also makes a mockery of the law. As the Guardian also notes:
There are two aspects of the decision to ban publication of these documents which look decidedly odd. The first is to do with freedom of expression and the law of confidence. … There is something almost comic about a high court sitting in camera in the Strand ordering a blanket of confidentiality over something which, even as they secretly ruminate about secrecy, is being discussed around the world.
The second matter is whether or not the widest possible public scrutiny of the tax avoidance schemes of a major bank should — now, of all times — be prevented by court order.
As they continue:
While the judge agreed the Guardian's tax coverage was important he seemed to think there was no merit in allowing a wider public to read the detailed documents in which Barclays employees discussed how they planned to structure these schemes and how they would argue their legitimacy with the taxman. It is better, in his view, that banks, tax advisers and lawyers should be allowed to have private conversations with Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs without any kind of wider scrutiny. This ignores widespread concerns — articulated by the Barclays whistleblower among others — that it is precisely the private nature of these conversations that has allowed banks and corporations to get away with such rampant tax avoidance over so many years.
But this is the key point
This is not an arcane dispute between a newspaper and a bank over marginal tax- dodging at the fringes. If Barclays were to be forced to follow RBS into abandoning its tax avoidance adventures, many hundreds of millions would be removed from its annual profits and leave the bank. Shareholders and government need to know what is going on. And the public should be allowed a glimpse into the cosy world of secret negotiations between bankers, lawyers and tax inspectors over who can get away with what. It is a worrying day when a judge thinks he knows better.
This whole Barclays scam is, to put it quite unsubtly, a fraud on the public in the sense that it relies upon a deception (albeit legitimate, assisted here by the Courts) to secure a financial advantage for Barclays executives at cost to the taxpayer and Barclays shareholders.
The Court thought Barclays’ human rights would be abused by publication. My question is simple: what about the rights of the rest of us?
Barclays is abusing us all. That has to stop.
Tax havens facilitate that abuse. That also has to stop.
Both have to happen now.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
“It is a repeat of the stupidity of the British judiciary … ”
I, and I expect many others also, will find this type of comment not only highly offensive towards what continues to be the the most respected judiciary in the world, but it also goes to show the fundamental weakness in too much of what you write. One day, you might choose instead to recognise the respective functions of the judiciary and the government and then direct your attentions properly to those whom actually make the laws you complain of.
Seeking to imply that the judiciary is (in my interpretation of your comment) corrupt, does neither you, nor the veracity of any arguments you wish to advance, any credit.
Oh dear Andrew
Are you upset that I suggest an elite might look after their own?
Heaven forbid that anyone should even think such a thing
Of course it has never happened
Are you denying it?
Richard
so how far would you go in making private conversations public? I do hope it is not just the ones you don’t like.
None of this is terribly surprising. Does anyone recall the judge’s comments about the probity of “Lord” Archer in his case against the guardian? What are these “Reeboks”?
The fact is that I think everyone now knows about Barclays sordid little dealings. Hardly anyone would understand the detailed papers (I’m sure I wouldn’t) This is a pyrrhic victory for Barclays and only underlines how much they have to hide.
What matters now is for HMRC’s lawyers to go through these documents with a fine toothcomb and I hope there will be some i not dotted and some t not crossed which will enable HMRC to deal with this in, I trust, a severe fashion.
I can’t believe I just read this: The Court thought Barclays’ human rights would be abused. If Barclays is human when is it going to die? Can we put it in jail?
Alastair
In my opinion, and it is my opinion alone, I would have full accounts of all companies on public record, including a detailed profit and loss account and tax computations and I would also have all tax returns on public record, as happens in Scandinavia.
It’s not a coincidence that they have such high standards of living: they base it on trust. We destroy well-being through secrecy.
I accept that this will be a long time coming.
Richard
The UK legal system is part of the problem and part of an industry the perpetuates tax abuse. A general anti-avoidance provision cant work because of abuse of rights, disclosure of documents are an abuse of rights…. barclays have had a dedicated highly paid tax team engaged in avoidance. Such companies arent acting in the public interest. My response has been to cease banking with Barclays after 27 loyal years !
Seek and ye shall find
Richard, although as I understand the terms of the injunction preclude The Guardian (or for that matter you or I) from publishing links to websites outside the jurisdiction that have placed the documents online there is no prohibition against simply mentioning that they are available online.
It should not take anybody more than five minutes to find them, the only reason that it takes more than 30 seconds is that the most obvious website has crashed under the weight of thousands of people trying to access the documents concerned.
Prior to the injunction only 127 people had accessed the documents on the Guardian website. Since the injunction it is safe to say that at least a hundred times as many have done so.
Some English judges are internet savvy, but plainly Mr Justice Ouseley who granted the injunction is not.
@Richard Murphy
Not upset, but most certainly annoyed. Whether I agree with them, or not, I respect your right to express your views. But you a member of a professional body and should be expected to act accordingly. I accept I may be wrong in expressing this view, which is why, having first raised the matter here, I have now invited the Bar Council to take up the matter with the ICAEW.
Andrew Brooks; “what continues to be the the most respected judiciary in the world,”. Really? This comment is about as accurate as that hackneyed old remark about the British Parliament being “the mother of Paliaments”.
Robbie, you’ve taken exactly the right action, don’t do any business with the greedy, tax-dodging so and so’s.
So, Andrew, let me understand what you are saying. The judiciary should be above any criticism and any critic should be disciplined. This is risible. Are you yourself a member of the legal profession?
[…] guess it was going to happen one day. Someone called Andrew Brooks has taken offence at my comments on the decision of the UK judiciary to ban continued publication of the documents disclosed by the […]
[…] guess it was going to happen one day. Someone called Andrew Brooks has taken offence at my comments on the decision of the UK judiciary to ban continued publication of the documents disclosed by the […]
Richard,
There are plenty of idiots around outside the professional acocuntancy bodies and even inside thgem.
So let Andrew Brooks do his worst. Some years ago, ACCA wrote to my Vice Chancellor (at University of East London) behind my back and asked him to silence me. The next day 41 MPs raised the matter in the House of Commons. I am syure that the same support would extend to you not only from me but many others who value your work, honesty and integrity.
In case Andrew wants to refer me to someone as well let me add that nothing should be above criticism and I am yet to see any theory or evidence which suggests that judges somehow have a different genetic structure and somehow do not succumb to corrupt behaviour. Legal history provides plenty of examples.