It was the story they did not want you to read — but yesterday a Supreme Court judge ruled that it would be "quite inappropriate to restrain publication" about a government plan to spend millions of dollars of taxpayers' money.

Puisne Judge Geoffrey Bell set aside a temporary injunction he imposed on The Royal Gazette late on Tuesday night at a hearing yesterday and rejected a bid from the Attorney General for a permanent ban.

Solicitor General Barrie McKay argued in a hearing in chambers on Wednesday that the leaking of a Cabinet memorandum to the press about a secret deal to buy the Swan Building for $24.5 million threatened the democratic governance of the Island.

"Cabinet secrecy is crucial," he said, adding that Ministers had to feel they could have "full and frank" debate on matters concerning the country without fearing that their personal views would be made public.

"They need to be able to discuss issues and political strategies with one another in a frank and uninhibited manner," he said, adding that privacy was often needed when Government was involved in financial negotiations with other organisations.

"Secrecy is necessary in the interests of fairness and justice for all," he said.

The memo was leaked to this newspaper by a source who believed the public had a right to know about the negotiations and the fact that Finance Minister Paula Cox opposed the plan.

But Mr. McKay said: "Cabinet secrecy prevents Government appearing divided."

He said this newspaper had "a responsibility to be responsible" and must have known that the document was leaked unlawfully. "This is a clear attempt on the part of the press to interfere with the proper function of Government," he claimed.

But Mr. Justice Bell told him: "I'm not sure I can accept that. It's clear that the press has taken the view that it's in the public interest."

Lawyer Jeffrey Elkinson, for The Royal Gazette, said there was no evidence that the memo being leaked led to Cabinet being unable to function.

And he said there was nothing to suggest that this newspaper was guilty of any wrongdoing in having received the document. "The newspaper isn't culpable here."

He explained that the memo simply set out a proposal from the Works and Engineering Minister and detailed the fact that the Finance Minister was against it.

"It's not about voting patterns," he said. "This is a one-off where the Minister said: 'I'm not supporting it'. That should be in the public domain. What's wrong with it?"

Mr. Elkinson said the question the judge had to consider was whether the public had an interest in knowing about the spending of its money during a recession.

Mr. Justice Bell said in his judgement that publication of the memo would involve the premature disclosure of the views of an individual Minister.

"Without that reference to the view of an individual Cabinet member, I would almost certainly have come to the view that publication should not be restrained," he said.

He added that on Thursday, VSB News aired a story about Government's plan to buy at least one city block in Hamilton to save on rent — and the fact that the idea might be scuppered because of "budget strains".

The judge said: "It does seem to me that in these circumstances it is quite inappropriate to restrain publication of the memorandum."

He said the VSB story was inaccurate because it identified Sir John Swan's Seon Place as the building being considered for purchase. But he said it was still now in the public domain that budgetary considerations may put Government's plans on hold.

"The underlying subject matter of the Cabinet memorandum now being, in broad terms, in the public domain, I do not think that the court should restrain publication of the Cabinet memorandum." He made no order for costs.

AG Kim Wilson obtained the temporary gag after making an ex parte application, meaning in the absence of and without legal representation for The Royal Gazette.

She said in her handwritten application that the Cabinet memo had "found its way" to this newspaper due to a breach of confidence.

The full civil claim from Government — rejected in its entirety by Mr. Justice Bell — was for $50,000 in damages, a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from publishing any article about the memo and an order requiring the copy of the memo to be surrendered.