Anyone who reads the story in The Guardian will realise that the decision by Mrs Justice Swift to refuse the Government an injunction was the right one.

The Attorney-General’s argument that printing it would prejudice the ongoing police investigation into cash for honours and any subsequent trial was pure fantasy - as has been demonstrated by the removal of the earlier injunctive restrictions on the BBC at lunchtime today.

Having read The Guardian's report this morning and, now that the injunction has been lifted, seen the BBC’s report, it’s obvious that they have done precisely zero damage so far. Furthermore, there is absolutely no possibility of any substantial risk of serious prejudice to a future trial that, it must be remembered, may not actually take place.

It would be preposterous to suggest that anyone affected was not already aware of the e-mail or document and so it will have come as no surprise to them and therefore cannot have affected the police enquiries.

For the Government to try and argue otherwise is unprecedented. But they did – and we should applaud The Guardian for standing up to them.

This was not presented as a sensational, prejudicial story but rather a balanced, serious piece of coverage on an issue of enormous public interest and importance.

The Guardian’s success is a black eye for the BBC, which failed to fight its own corner on Saturday night. It could have taken its case immediately to the Court of Appeal after the Government secured an interim injunction against it, but instead through its failure to appeal the BBC found itself prevented from covering one of the the biggest stories of the day while no such restriction applied on ITV or Sky.

Even now, there are serious unanswered questions concerning why Saturday night’s injunction was granted in the first place. The Attorney-General had to demonstrate two things through cogent evidence: (1) evidence that demonstrates the real risk of serious prejudice not only to the police investigation, but also (2) that the evidence of prejudice would go on to infect any subsequent trial.

Perhaps more concerning still is the complete absence of written reasons from Mr Justice Wilke, the judge who granted the interim injunction. His decision should have been open to public scrutiny not only in the Court of Appeal but also among lawyers, academics and the wider public - particularly as his decision drove a cart and horses through decades of decisions protecting against censorship by the state.

On the evidence, I can’t see how an injunction was justified and we are still waiting to find out why the court thought otherwise.

Mark Stephens is a partner and media lawyer at Finers, Stephens Innocent

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers