Day 312 - 11 Dec 96 - Page 39


     
     1        finding some middle ground, it was decided they should have
     2        no right to sue for defamation.  So what we are arguing is
     3        that the balancing is not something where you always find a
     4        middle ground, it is something to say, in the light of all
     5        the argument should they have that right to defend their
     6        reputation through the courts in that way?
     7
     8        So, we argue that multi-national corporations clearly, yes,
     9        clearly, should not have a right to silence their critics
    10        through the threat or the actual service of writs.
    11
    12   MR. JUSTICE BELL: I do not want to encourage you because in a
    13        mood of helpfulness the way it seems to me to at the moment
    14        is that Mr. Justice French said, and I do not know whether
    15        there is an appeal, that he was following what Lord Keith
    16        said in Derbyshire.
    17
    18   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.
    19
    20   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I have to say, it seems to me at the moment
    21        that if I acceded to your argument I would be flying in the
    22        face of what Lord Keith said the effect of the authorities
    23        was at the moment, and judges are entitled to be democrats
    24        in the sense that they appreciate there are some matters
    25        which are of fundamental public importance, and to a degree
    26        where it is an elected Parliament with its ability to
    27        canvass all sorts of considerations which it is difficult
    28        even for the House of Lords, let alone a single judge, to
    29        canvass, and where many judges, and I may be one, think it
    30        is not just a slight advance of the law, it is a radical
    31        change and that it is for the Parliament of our elected
    32        representatives to decide what the law should be if it
    33        should change.
    34
    35        But that is not to, as it were, show my hand at the moment
    36        with a view to you have got this, I have got Derbyshire,
    37        I have got Mr. Justice French's judgment, what do you-----
    38
    39   MR. MORRIS:  I think the point-----
    40
    41   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What have I not thought of?
    42
    43   MR. MORRIS:  I think the point is that that is a good point you
    44        made, the point that in fact in this case here we have the
    45        courts making a fundamental step in the protection of the
    46        public's rights, bypassing Parliament, they themselves...
    47        Mr. Rampton is holding his head.
    48
    49   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That is one thing I cannot do is it not?
    50
    51   MR. MORRIS:  What I am saying is that the courts decided it was
    52        not some elected representative deciding that governmental
    53        bodies should have no right to sue for libel, but it was
    54        the courts that decided that that provision should be taken
    55        away in order for the protection of the public's
    56        interests.  We say that has echoes in the increasing
    57        European persuasiveness, and influence of the European law,
    58        that the courts should decide, and this would be the
    59        opportunity to do so -- not 'opportunity' but the
    60        perfect...  We would say there is a compulsion in this case

Prev Next Index