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
