Day 157 - 18 Jul 95 - Page 35
1 the improper use of its machinery, and will, in
2 a proper case, summarily prevent its machinery
3 from being used as a means of vexation and
4 oppression in the process of litigation".
5
6 Then below that it says:
7
8 "The categories of conduct rendering a claim
9 frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process are
10 not closed but depend on all the relevant
11 circumstances and for this purpose
12 considerations of public policy and the
13 interests of justice may be very material."
14
15 We would contend that if we do not have transcripts it will
16 be impossible for us to have a fair trial for the rest of
17 the case, or the case will -- or if we take verbatim notes
18 the case will move so slowly as to make the case cumbersome
19 and oppressive in itself, especially -----
20
21 MR. JUSTICE BELL: The speed at which it moves is, to some
22 extent, up to me, whether I think it is necessary to go
23 slow for you to take a proper note or not.
24
25 MR. MORRIS: And that if the case becomes oppressive it becomes
26 an abuse of process. Then the interests of justice and
27 public policy, which is referred to in the last sentence in
28 that clause which are very material in this clause, and
29 this case is of a great amount of relevance to public
30 policy and the interests of justice because of the nature
31 of the type of case, libel being an attempt to suppress
32 certain, freedom of speech because of the unusual
33 length -- yes, sorry, because also the position of the
34 Plaintiffs in the public eye, and because of the fact of us
35 being litigants in person which is of public concern at the
36 moment, bearing in mind the Lord Chief Justice Taylor's
37 remarks, that on all those grounds it is not in the public
38 interest that we should have facilities denied to us or
39 unavailable to us on top of all the other inequalities, and
40 the Plaintiffs must know the effect this will have on our
41 ability to defend ourselves in this case. Therefore, the
42 case should be struck out as an abuse of process if we are
43 going to be expected to continue without transcripts and,
44 even more so, if we are unable to take effective notes.
45
46 If, as we contend, McDonald's must know the effect of their
47 withholding of transcripts from us, and in opposing our
48 application for transcripts to be available to us by
49 whatever means, they must be -- we would contend that they
50 deliberately want to bring the trial to a halt because they
51 have become disinterested in the case, because they want
52 out of the case, but because they can actually take no
53 action to prevent the press and the public having access to
54 official records of evidence in the case they are hitting
55 out at us. That, in itself, is a contempt of court, but it
56 is certainly -----
57
58 MR. JUSTICE BELL: How have they prevented the press having
59 access to it?
60
