By Gabriel Princewill-
Retail billionaire Sir Philip Green has been named and shamed in Parliament as the businessman accused by his employees of sexual and racial harassment.
Peter Hain took the radical step under Parliamentary privilege of identifying Green in the Lords, citing his duty to do so. Hain’s revelation also came with the implied assertion that Sir, Phillip Green is in fact guilty of the alleged offences , although the case is still ongoing. The developments that have transpired in this case is truly remarkable, transcending the usual boundaries of legal process.
Parliamentary privilege provides members of Parliament with immunity from liability for a violation of the law where the benefits of sidestepping legal instruction outweighs any disadvantage in doing so. This case as serious as it is can be turned into a movie of sorts if cameras were placed in the courts so the public can follow the case.
The only problem that can arise in overruling an injunction of this type is the principle of judicial precedent in which a judgement of the court sets the standard for all future cases with materially similar facts. The principle of law relating to protecting contracts still stand, but they can have perverse outcomes. They are also highly contentious and will surely spark discussion and debate in the weeks and months ahead.
SERIOUS AND REPEATED
Hain said the “serious and repeated” nature of the allegations led him to expose the aristocrat who has long used his power and wealth to harass his employees on sexual and racial grounds. On Tuesday, the Telegraph ran an extensive article lamenting the injustice of contracts that empower powerful men like Cain to act with impunity. The British paper was the subject of an injunction from the Court of Appeal overruling the High Court’s previous decision to name Sir Peter Hain.
”I feel it’s my duty under parliamentary privilege to name Philip Green as the individual in question given that the media have been subject to an injunction preventing publication of the full details of this story which is clearly in the public interest,” Lord Cain told a riveted Parliament.
The injunction remains active, but Lord Hain’s has nullified its effect for the sake of public interest. The case will proceed with his identity now in the public domain; his alleged transgressions laid bare for all to observe.
Green said in a statement : ”To the extent that it is suggested that I have been guilty of unlawful sexual or racist behaviour, I categorically and wholly deny these allegations,” he said. “[Topshop parent group] Arcadia and I take accusations and grievances from employees very seriously and in the event that one is raised, it is thoroughly investigated.“Arcadia employs more than 20,000 people and in common with many large businesses sometimes receives formal complaints from employees. In some cases these are settled with the agreement of all parties and their legal advisers. These settlements are confidential so I cannot comment further on them.”
With the case still ongoing , one is cautioned to tread carefully in comment. However, it suffices to say that allegations of racial and sexual bullying from multiple complainants does not bode well for the billionaire businessman’s reputation. The bubble of concealment is burst