A High Court injunction preventing the BBC from running a news item about the cash-for-honours investigation was discharged today, hours after a judge refused to grant an injunction to gag a national newspaper from running a story about the inquiry.

Last night, a judge declined to prevent The Guardian from suggesting that Lord Levy, Tony Blair's personal fundraiser, may have attempted to influence the evidence of Ruth Turner, a senior Downing Street aide, in the cash-for-honours investigation.

In a statement today, Scotland Yard said: “In view of the Guardian story it is no longer tenable or appropriate for us to seek to maintain any of the existing undertakings or injunctions against other media.”

Meanwhile, Lord Levy’s solicitor Neil O’May said in a statement: “Lord Levy categorically denies any wrongdoing whatsoever, as he has throughout this lengthy police investigation."

Expert View

The Government's argument that printing the article would prejudice the ongoing police investigation was pure fantasy

Mark Stephens

• More

• Post a comment

Related Links

• Comment: why cash-for-honours injunctions are ludicrous

• Analysis: BBC investigation points to high-level cover-up

• PM's office deny cash-for-honours leak

Mr May said the “media-style trial” was placing “an intolerable burden” on the peer and his family.

Earlier, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said he had “absolutely no reason to believe” that No 10 was involved in the Guardian story, but stopped short of categorically denying any Downing Street involvement.

Lord Goldsmith secured an injunction on Friday blocking the BBC from running a news item that the police had said could “impede their inquiries”. Its terms were later relaxed to allow the BBC to report that Ms Turner was the author of an e-mail and that it concerned Lord Levy, details that The Times reported yesterday.

The BBC said today in a news report: “The story is that No 10 aide Ruth Turner had expressed her concern that Lord Levy had put to her a version of events which she believed to be untrue.”

The report added: “In the document, one source has told the BBC, Ms Turner said she was worried by Lord Levy’s words and she believed the Prime Minister should be told about it. The BBC does not know whether the prime minister was told.”

The BBC said it had not seen the document but “has had it supported by more than one source.”

The Guardian suggested this morning that detectives were examining whether Lord Levy had attempted to “shape” Ms Turner's evidence to the inquiry.

The paper claimed that detectives were investigating a meeting between Ms Turner and Lord Levy last year, an account of which the Downing Street aide gave to her lawyers and which has been given to police.

In a joint statement, the Attorney-General’s office and Scotland Yard said: “We were made aware late yesterday evening that The Guardian was planning to run an article which gave us cause for concern. We sought to obtain an undertaking from it that it would not run aspects of the story. It refused so we sought an injunction which was refused on the ground that the newspaper had already been printed.”

In a statement on its website, the paper said: “The judge said the case was finely balanced but she refused to accede to the Attorney-General’s request, saying that the story was already in the public domain because it was being printed.”

Alan Rusbridger, the newspaper’s editor, added: “The Guardian was given a significant story about the cash-for-honours inquiry which we checked both with Lord Levy and with the police. The story was well-sourced and clearly in the public interest.”

Speaking this morning on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, Mr Rusbridger said: “We behaved as we would in any other story.

He said: “We had a rather bizarre conversation with the Attorney-General’s lawyer who wanted to know whether the van drivers employed by The Guardian had mobile phones and could be turned back to the printing presses.

“I think at that point the judge realised it was all getting rather ridiculous and said she wouldn’t grant the injunction and it was a finely-balanced argument anyway.”

Times Recommends

• Charles blazes trail as sun king
• Thalidomiders win payout 50 years on
• Libel gag on talk of 'medical hurricane'