Day 157 - 18 Jul 95 - Page 48
1 English legal aid scheme excludes assistance in
2 defamation proceedings has not been shown to be
3 arbitrary in the present case.
4
5 The question remains, therefore, whether despite
6 the absence of legal aid for defamation
7 proceedings the applicant was effectively being
8 denied access to court contrary to article 6.1."
9
10 Then goes on the actual decision in this case, the
11 Defendants' application to the Commission:
12
13 "The Commission considers that this general
14 approach to the question of access to court is
15 not affected by the litigant status, as either
16 plaintiff or defendant.
17
18 Turning to the facts of the present case, it has
19 not been shown that the applicants are being
20 denied effective access to court as litigants in
21 persons, albeit inexperienced. They seem to be
22 making a tenacious defence against McDonald's
23 despite the absence of legal aid, the complexity
24 of the procedures and the risk of an award of
25 damages against them if they are found to have
26 libeled McDonald's. The Commission finds,
27 therefore, that the unavailability of legal aid
28 to defend defamation proceedings in the present
29 case has not deprived the applicants of access
30 to court contrary to article 6.1. It follows
31 that this part of the application is manifestly
32 ill-founded within the meaning of article 27.2."
33
34 My Lord, then one can, skipping out the next number 2 which
35 is about article 10, go to the bottom of the page,
36 paragraph 3:
37
38 "The applicants next complain that they have
39 been discriminated against on grounds of wealth
40 in the protection of their articles 6 and 10
41 rights contrary to article 14. They contend
42 that the lack of legal aid simplified the
43 procedures or restrictions on damages amounts to
44 a breach of article 14 of the Convention, in
45 that those who can afford to pay for legal and
46 expert advice, assistance and representation are
47 better able to secure and defend their rights
48 under articles 6 and 10 of the Convention than
49 those without financial resources.
50
51 The Commission acknowledges that in most
52 circumstances wealthy people are better able to
53 defend their rights. However, the Commission
54 has also recognised above that it is reasonable,
55 given the limited financial resources of most
56 civil aid legal schemes, to establish priorities
57 which may exclude defamation litigation given
58 its risky nature and the difficulty in
59 accurately predicting its outcome.
60
