Day 157 - 18 Jul 95 - Page 46


     
     1             (a) The United Kingdom's statutory prohibition
     2                 on the availability of legal aid to
     3                 defendants in libel proceedings;
     4
     5             (b) the failure of the United Kingdom to make
     6                 any other provision to assist defendants in
     7                 libel proceedings."
     8
     9        There included necessarily, we would submit, if it should
    10        come about, daily transcripts at the public expense or at
    11        the expense of the other party.
    12
    13   MR. MORRIS:  Can we just read that?
    14
    15   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
    16
    17   MR. RAMPTON:  Then, my Lord, one ought to look, I would suggest,
    18        at the actual decision itself.  It is quite short and I
    19        will not read the whole of it, but I will start at the
    20        beginning:
    21
    22             "The facts:  The applicants produced a matter
    23             of dispute in this case" -- in fact, not even a
    24             dispute because we do not allege they produced
    25             it -- "a leaflet entitled 'What is wrong with
    26             McDonald's'", then it sets out a summary of what
    27             the leaflet is thought to have said.
    28
    29             "McDonald's are in the process of suing the
    30             applicants for libel damages and a permanent
    31             injunction against the applicants to prevent
    32             them from repeating the alleged libel.  The
    33             applicants are defending themselves on matters
    34             of some complexity and have sought legal aid.
    35             It was refused on 3rd June 1992 because legal
    36             aid is not available for defamation proceedings,
    37             not being in the schedule of proceedings
    38             envisaged by the Legal Aid Act 1988.  An appeal
    39             to the public has apparently been made for
    40             voluntary funding of the applicants' case which
    41             seems to have aroused media interest.
    42
    43             Complaints:  The applicants complain that they
    44             are being denied effective access to court under
    45             article 6 to defend their right of free speech.
    46             They feel they are unable to defend themselves
    47             without legal aid, expert advice, assistance and
    48             representation against such a weighty adversary
    49             as McDonald's."
    50 
    51        My Lord, one might compare the weight of that complaint 
    52        against the weight, or lack of it, of the complaint which 
    53        they presently make to your Lordship about the lack of
    54        daily transcripts for the remainder of this case.
    55
    56        It goes on:
    57
    58             "The applicants also complain that the
    59             initiation of proceedings against them by
    60             McDonald's constitutes an unjustified defence

Prev Next Index