Former Premier Ewart Brown failed yesterday in an attempt to gag the media over court claims he sought a personal stake in a private firm pitching for Government business.Dr Brown was ordered by Chief Justice Richard Ground to pay The Royal Gazette’s legal costs after the newspaper successfully contested his bid.He launched legal action after businessman David Bolden stated in court that Dr Brown made overtures, via an unnamed Government Minister, for a stake in Mr Bolden’s wireless technology enterprise.Mr Bolden, who was giving evidence under oath at his trial in the Supreme Court, said Dr Brown, who was the Premier at the time of the alleged incident in November 2008, also asked for his wife Wanda Henton Brown to be placed on the company board.Mr Bolden further stated that Dr Brown asked him on a different occasion for 60 percent of commissions he was earning for work on Bermuda’s public pension funds.He gave the evidence on June 8 in Supreme Court Number 3 in answer to questions from the Chief Justice and prosecutor Susan Mulligan. Mr Bolden and his wife Antoinette were on trial at the time, accused of stealing from their company Emerald Capital International and laundering some of the money.They were cleared of those charges yesterday, but convicted of a further charge of misleading the Bermuda Monetary Authority [BMA] over the finances of their Emerald Financial Group of companies.Mr Bolden’s statements about Dr Brown were made in court after the jury had been sent out of the room at the request of defence lawyer Andrew Martin.Ordinarily this newspaper, which was the only media organisation with a reporter in court at the time, would be free to publish a balanced and accurate report of Mr Bolden’s evidence once the jury had reached its verdict.Dr Brown tried to stop this, and his lawyer Mark Pettingill sought a hearing before the Chief Justice asking for a temporary gag on the media to give Dr Brown a chance to launch proceedings seeking a permanent injunction.Mr Pettingill, an Opposition MP, said the claims were defamatory and impugned the good reputation of Dr Brown. He complained Mr Bolden should not have been allowed to make them in a public courtroom, and Dr Brown’s wife Wanda, an attorney and businesswoman of “outstanding character” also had her reputation sullied.Mr Pettingill characterised Mr Bolden’s claims as “grossly defamatory comments against former Premier Dr Brown and his wife, alleging kickbacks”.Mr Pettingill also stated that Dr Brown and Mrs Brown believe Mr Bolden lied on oath.“Their position is unequivocal. The defendant perjured himself in making these defamatory remarks,” said Mr Pettingill.He said when Mr Bolden made the claims in court, “everybody got blindsided by it”.Mr Pettingill acknowledged the press have “established rights” to report court proceedings, but urged the Chief Justice to also have regard for his clients, who were not present in court to defend their reputations.He explained Dr Brown and his wife were both overseas in different places at the time, and only heard about what Mr Bolden said the day after the court hearing.He said that, had Dr Brown been there, he would have been prepared to come and give evidence himself for the Crown refuting the allegations.Now, he said, Dr Brown wished to instruct a Queen’s Counsel from London to apply for a permanent injunction banning the allegations from being reported.The Chief Justice asked Mr Pettingill to state what authority in law he had to ban the press from reporting such allegations made in a public courtroom while under oath.Mr Pettingill admitted he could not find any previous cases to back up his application for a reporting ban, commenting: “We may be treading on new ground”.The Royal Gazette’s lawyer, Jeffrey Elkinson, opposed the application to gag the paper. He successfully argued that the Chief Justice had no power to do so.Mr Elkinson cited a previous ruling by the Supreme Court in 2007 when Dr Brown tried to prevent The Royal Gazette reporting revelations from a leaked police dossier on the Bermuda Housing Corporation scandal.Mr Elkinson argued: “The newspaper has a right to report a fair report of the proceedings.” Mr Elkinson conducted the case on behalf of The Royal Gazette with the assistance of Mr Ben Adamson.He added: “Members of the public have already heard what Mr Bolden has said and it would be inappropriate for the newspaper not to publish it to its readers and the people of Bermuda.”Delivering his ruling against Dr Brown’s application for a gag, the Chief Justice said he did not have the power in law to ban the paper from reporting the statements made in court.Speaking after the outcome in the case, Mr Pettingill said Dr Brown plans to mount a private prosecution against Mr Bolden, alleging he committed perjury.