Day 157 - 18 Jul 95 - Page 18


     
     1        a copy except us.  I will -----
     2
     3   MR. RAMPTON:  No, it is much better that you do not try to
     4        summarise it.  (Copy handed)
     5
     6   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  How do you say that helps me?
     7
     8   MR. MORRIS:  The European Court of Human Rights in this case,
     9        1979, Airey v. Ireland, indicated that the lack of legal
    10        aid, I believe, if that is the drift of that headnote, in
    11        that circumstance, which of course legal aid is not just
    12        representation, it is also having the funds to pay for
    13        things like transcripts, if we were legally aided which we
    14        are not.
    15
    16   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I would not be at all certain of that because
    17        you almost certainly have the authority from the Legal Aid
    18        Board to pay for the transcripts or to pay a contribution
    19        towards the cost of the transcript.  I think it would be
    20        wrong for you to assume that the Legal Aid Board would fund
    21        that.
    22
    23   MR. MORRIS:  Right, but in any event -----
    24
    25   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That is if they thought it was an appropriate
    26        case for legal aid on the merits, quite apart from the
    27        difficulty you have with no legal aid available in libel
    28        actions anyway.
    29
    30   MR. MORRIS:  Right.  We did apply for legal aid at the European
    31        Courts in 1991, I think it was, and we were turned down on
    32        the grounds that we had put in "a tenacious defence" and,
    33        therefore, we could not claim -----
    34
    35   MR. RAMPTON:  I have a copy of the Commission's decision on the
    36        Defendants' application which I shall show to your Lordship
    37        in due course in full.
    38
    39   MR. MORRIS:  But that was at that stage of trial.  It is
    40        arguable whether now if we applied for legal aid in Europe
    41        that we would be successful.  Of course, it may form part
    42        of an application at the end of the case.  So, what we say
    43        with Airey v. Ireland is there is a recognition that
    44        without the service of a lawyer and legal aid, in that case
    45        and by extension, we would argue, this case, that this is a
    46        violation of Article 6 of the European Human Rights
    47        Charter, or whatever; the point being that European
    48        authority is persuasive authority, and that it gives added
    49        weight to our application that the lack of funds that we
    50        have to pay for transcripts which the Plaintiffs have 
    51        within 24 hours would cost us œ350 or something, 
    52        thereabouts, for the equivalent facility, the lack of money 
    53        that we have to have that facility, effectively, is
    54        undermining our ability to defend ourselves in this case,
    55        especially given the length of the case and, obviously, the
    56        imbalance of resources in general.
    57
    58        Some of the other European authorities we could not track
    59        down as well such as Ofner & Hopfinger v. Austria, 1962,
    60        regarding equality of arms, but I think that point should

Prev Next Index