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
