Day 158 - 19 Jul 95 - Page 06

     
     1        could get a fair trial.  There may be cases where it is
     2        possible to get a fair trial without Legal Aid, but that is
     3        not what we are saying in this case.
     4
     5        There is a recognition there in that judgment of Airey v.
     6        Ireland that in the vast amount of cases where Legal Aid is
     7        unavailable and, by implication, certain things like
     8        transcripts, it would be an injustice under European law.
     9        It was related, if I remember rightly, in the judgment, to
    10        the complexity of the procedure of the case; and this case
    11        would certainly apply under that criteria.
    12
    13        The assertion which has been repeated by McDonald's in the
    14        press that McDonald's are not seeking costs or damages,
    15        which is -- they have not applied to amend their Statement
    16        of Claim.  They are still, as far as we can see, seeking
    17        costs and damages.
    18
    19   MS. STEEL:  I actually think it would be helpful if the
    20        Plaintiffs clarified the position on this because, as far
         as I am aware -----
    22
    23   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I am not concerned with that in this
    24        application.  As far as I am concerned, there is a claim
    25        for both.
    26
    27   MS. STEEL:   OK.
    28
    29   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Whether or not McDonald's are basically
    30        interested in damages from you, I assume they have in mind
    31        that you may get an award of damages against them, and
    32        I assume they would not want you to get damages when they
    33        do not, apart from anything else.
    34
    35        Whether you are able to pay them or not is entirely a
    36        different matter.  At the moment, I am minded to think that
    37        ability to pay has absolutely nothing to do with whether an
    38        award should be made.  An award is made according to the
    39        merits as they appear to me.
    40
    MR. MORRIS:  The idea of just noting what is significant,
    42        obviously, you can only note certain passages from a
    43        person's evidence.  We would say that there is a large
    44        amount of significant detail in each person's evidence; and
    45        if the Plaintiffs wish to argue that the context of what
    46        people say is important, then I do not see how they can
    47        argue that we would be able to take effective detailed
    48        notes just on the basis of what we think is significant,
    49        that we have time to jot down before we move on to the next
    50        point. 
    51 
    52        So it is the Plaintiffs' case that evidence, as a whole, is 
    53        significant and that specific sentences need to be
    54        evaluated with the weight of the rest of the evidence.
    55        Therefore, as that is their case, whether or not it is
    56        right or wrong, then they cannot argue that we need to have
    57        a full record of the evidence in this case; and their
    58        denial of that full record to us can only be -- well, the
    59        inference is for the court, why they would want to deny us
    60        that full evidence.