Day 158 - 19 Jul 95 - Page 04

     
     1        because I know the case backwards -- what their Lordships
     2        found was that English law was entirely in consonance with
     3        Article 10 and there was, therefore, no need for the court
     4        to pay regard to Article 10.
     5
     6   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I will read the headnotes of both the Court
     7        of Appeal and the House of Lords, and I will read any
     8        particular pages I am asked to read.  There is quite enough
     9        work in this case without just being asked to read
    10        something in case I find something which helps me.
    11
    12        What else did you want to say in reply to Mr. Rampton's
    13        submission?
    14
    15   MR. MORRIS:  On the subject of the European law, I do not accept
    16        his understanding.  My understanding is that all European
    17        law that may be relevant to this case is persuasive, in any
    18        event; and we refer to examples where European law has
    19        ruled in the spirit of the application which we made as
    20        regards equality of arms and unfairness of cases, in which
         case we would say European law backs up our application.
    22        I will not go into detail on that.
    23
    24        It can only be significant that the House of Lords ruled
    25        out the right of elected bodies to sue for defamation in
    26        this country on the grounds of protection of freedom of
    27        speech.
    28
    29        I have not had a chance to check this since yesterday in my
    30        notes, but Mr. Rampton made great play about inaccuracies
    31        reported in the media -- well, not inaccuracies, no; he did
    32        not complain about any inaccurate statement, because of
    33        course everything that comes from verification by us would
    34        be accurate -- but about the press may be omitting certain
    35        matters.  But, as far as we are concerned, the press has a
    36        right to publish what they do.  There has been a lot of
    37        inaccurate things said about us -- that is the way the
    38        cookie crumbles -- including absolutely fundamental aspects
    39        of this case, like what the issues are about and things
    40        like that.
    41
    42        He said something about no express powers to order
    43        McDonald's to disclose transcripts and no express powers to
    44        order payment out of public funds.  We did not say there
    45        were express powers.  We said there are powers which give
    46        the judge discretion which are unlimited in the references
    47        that we referred to in the White Book.  It does not have to
    48        expressly say that "Powers of discretion would include",
    49        and then list exhaustively every possible matter on which
    50        the judge could exercise his discretion, we would submit. 
    51 
    52        Basically, the need for an express power regarding payment 
    53        for a transcript is unnecessary.  So, we would say that the
    54        general power of discretion to ensure that we have the
    55        transcripts exists, and unless the Plaintiffs (which they
    56        failed to do) show there is a limit to that discretion,
    57        then, effectively, we believe our case is demonstrated.
    58
    59        Mr. Rampton's next argument -- which was completely
    60        spurious, we would submit -- was that if Parliament had