Day 157 - 18 Jul 95 - Page 18
1 a copy except us. I will -----
2
3 MR. RAMPTON: No, it is much better that you do not try to
4 summarise it. (Copy handed)
5
6 MR. JUSTICE BELL: How do you say that helps me?
7
8 MR. MORRIS: The European Court of Human Rights in this case,
9 1979, Airey v. Ireland, indicated that the lack of legal
10 aid, I believe, if that is the drift of that headnote, in
11 that circumstance, which of course legal aid is not just
12 representation, it is also having the funds to pay for
13 things like transcripts, if we were legally aided which we
14 are not.
15
16 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I would not be at all certain of that because
17 you almost certainly have the authority from the Legal Aid
18 Board to pay for the transcripts or to pay a contribution
19 towards the cost of the transcript. I think it would be
20 wrong for you to assume that the Legal Aid Board would fund
21 that.
22
23 MR. MORRIS: Right, but in any event -----
24
25 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That is if they thought it was an appropriate
26 case for legal aid on the merits, quite apart from the
27 difficulty you have with no legal aid available in libel
28 actions anyway.
29
30 MR. MORRIS: Right. We did apply for legal aid at the European
31 Courts in 1991, I think it was, and we were turned down on
32 the grounds that we had put in "a tenacious defence" and,
33 therefore, we could not claim -----
34
35 MR. RAMPTON: I have a copy of the Commission's decision on the
36 Defendants' application which I shall show to your Lordship
37 in due course in full.
38
39 MR. MORRIS: But that was at that stage of trial. It is
40 arguable whether now if we applied for legal aid in Europe
41 that we would be successful. Of course, it may form part
42 of an application at the end of the case. So, what we say
43 with Airey v. Ireland is there is a recognition that
44 without the service of a lawyer and legal aid, in that case
45 and by extension, we would argue, this case, that this is a
46 violation of Article 6 of the European Human Rights
47 Charter, or whatever; the point being that European
48 authority is persuasive authority, and that it gives added
49 weight to our application that the lack of funds that we
50 have to pay for transcripts which the Plaintiffs have
51 within 24 hours would cost us œ350 or something,
52 thereabouts, for the equivalent facility, the lack of money
53 that we have to have that facility, effectively, is
54 undermining our ability to defend ourselves in this case,
55 especially given the length of the case and, obviously, the
56 imbalance of resources in general.
57
58 Some of the other European authorities we could not track
59 down as well such as Ofner & Hopfinger v. Austria, 1962,
60 regarding equality of arms, but I think that point should
