Day 157 - 18 Jul 95 - Page 11
1
2 Indeed, the press can buy transcripts themselves. Should
3 they wish, they could buy the complete transcripts of the
4 whole trial. Indeed, if I can just remind you that you
5 made a comment that you would not be prejudiced by anything
6 you read about this case outside of the court.
7
8 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No. That is one thing you need not worry
9 about. With due respect to the media, the last thing in
10 the world I am going to do is decide this on what I read in
11 a newspaper rather than what I have heard from the witness
12 box and in the argument.
13
14 MR. MORRIS: So in that case we believe that there is absolutely
15 no avenue that the Plaintiffs can possibly take, let alone
16 justify, to fetter the press access to the evidence in this
17 case. Should they wish to do that, there are specific laws
18 for that purpose and we believe there is no basis for them
19 to use their frustration, or whatever, by hitting at us and
20 doing what, effectively, would sabotage our incourt
21 preparations by denying us access to a transcript.
22
23 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What may be said against you is that you are,
24 in fact, not being denied access to the transcript. You
25 would be allowed access to the transcript for the purpose
26 of using it in the conduct of the proceedings, so you would
27 not be limited and embarrassed in that sense, that what you
28 want is a step too far to McDonald's is to use it for
29 purposes other than your conduct of the case in court.
30
31 You have to separate the two. You have, if you observe the
32 conditions in McDonald's letter written and delivered to
33 you by hand only yesterday, the right to the transcripts.
34 What I want to know, since the main theme of your
35 application is that you will be handicapped in the conduct
36 of the action in court, how you will be handicapped in the
37 conduct of the action in court if you meet the conditions
38 in Barlow's letter?
39
40 MS. STEEL: I think that the Plaintiffs' letter and application
41 last week should be recognised as a complete sham.
42 Initially they said it was a matter of copyright and we
43 were breaching copyright. Then they were forced to
44 recognise that actually we were not breaching copyright and
45 there was no action they could take along that line. Then
46 they said it was a matter of they did not see why they
47 should pay for them. That was a complete sham because when
48 we made an application last week that the Plaintiffs should
49 agree to us getting the transcripts if we paid the cheaper
50 rate, but getting them immediately rather than three weeks
51 later, Mr. Rampton still objected and said that the
52 Plaintiffs were not going to agree to that.
53
54 We have offered to photocopy the Plaintiffs' copies
55 ourselves so that it does not cost them a penny. The point
56 is there is only one reason for this application and that
57 is to interfere with our preparations for the case and to
58 stop us cross-examining as effectively as we have been
59 doing, having brought this case to trial.
60
