DEFENDANTS' PETITION TO THE HOUSE OF LORDS
11.1.1999
FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
AGAINST THE 12th JANUARY START DATE OF THE McLIBEL TRIAL
McLIBEL DEFENDANTS LODGED A PETITION AT THE HOUSE OF LORDS ON 11th JAN FOR
LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE START DATE OF THE McLIBEL APPEAL. Today, at the
start of the McLibel Appeal, they were to have applied for a postponement
pending the hearing in the Lords. However this petition had been dealth with in record time!
By 10:00am the following morning at court, the Defendants were unaware
that a decision had been made - but the Court of Appeal judges had already
been informed that our application to the House of Lords had been refused. It
appears that the House of Lords had met especially early in order to consider
this application and a matter to do with the Pinochet case.
The McLibel Appeal Hearing therefore had to go ahead.
Statement available at Court on the morning of the 12th:
12th January 1999
Today the McLibel defendants applied for a postponement of the start date of the Appeal. This follows their petition on Monday 11th of January to the House of Lords seeking leave to appeal against the Order of Lord Justice Pill and Lord Justice May on 5th January that the McLibel Appeal was ready to proceed on the 12th January. The House of Lords will not be able to consider their petition at least until Wednesday 13th January. During a number of controversial 'directions hearings' over the last few months, the defendants were ordered to produce substantial written submissions in preparation for their Appeal due to start today, a highly onerous task for those denied Legal Aid and one which the defendants have not been able to complete yet. Additionally, as a result of this, they have hardly been able to prepare at all for the oral submissions which were due to start today. At the House of Lords, the defendants will argue that it is in the public interest that they be well prepared and ready for their extensive and important Appeal.Extracts from Defendants'
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL to HOUSE OF LORDS
"We are applying for leave to appeal against the Order of Lord Justices Pill
and May in Court 75 at the Court of Civil Appeals at 10.30am on January 5th
1999 that our Appeal is ready to proceed on 12th January 1999 substantially
based on written submissions by the parties."As with all defamation Appeals no legal aid is available, and we have been unrepresented throughout the whole Appeal process. We continue to be unrepresented.
"There have been 6 pre-hearing interlocutory and 'directions' hearings since July 1998, presided over by Lord Justice Pill and either one or two other Lord Justices (usually including LJs May or Keane).
"The defendants made submissions on 5th January that the Appeal hearing date was too soon, bearing in mind the extent of written submissions required (not yet completed by the defendants), and having had no time to respond to Plaintiffs' written submissions as they had to our written submissions so far served. The Plaintiffs' authorities relied on in the written submissions were only served on the defendants in 4 bundles as late as this Monday 4th January (despite this being an undertaking of the Plaintiffs on 9th December to do this 'as soon as possible' as a basis for enabling time for consideration and also written response).
"We contended that we needed time to obtain legal advice and to draft a response as was our right. We contended that the imposition of a requirement for written submissions, let alone comprehensive written submissions, was an undue burden on litigants in person, especially in a case such as this one, compounded by the short timescale up to January 12th. We argued (as we also had during the december directions hearings) that it directly breached the 1995 practice directions by Lord Bingham, re-stated by Lord Woolf in November 1998 [see below for details of these directions]. We also submitted that it breached European law regarding equality of arms and right to a fair hearing.
"The Judgment and Order of Lord Justice Pill and LJ May on the 5th January is one which raises fundamental issues of law and public policy (viz the effective public access to the court and therefore justice, equality of arms and right to a fair hearing) and therefore this application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords should, we submit, be granted.
"The Appeal hearing date of January 12th 1999 is too soon, and we are not ready to commence - we have not had sufficient time allowed since September 1998 to discharge our extremely heavy and undue burden as unrepresented and unadvised litigants in person, ie the extent of written submissions required (still not yet completed).
"Having concentrated on attempting (but not succeeding) to comply with the Orders for written submissions, we have consequently had little or no time to prepare oral submissions.
"To exercise our right to respond to Plaintiffs' submissions we need time to obtain legal advice and to draft the response. We contend that the imposition of a requirement for written submissions, let alone comprehensive written submissions, is an undue burden on litigants in person, especially in a case such as this one, compounded by the short timescale up to January 12th.
"Such a manifestly undue burden breaches European law regarding equality of arms and arguing power [Article 14 of the convention], and right to a fair hearing [Article 6(1) of the Convention]. It is also a breach of natural justice."