MR. PAUL FOOT: COURT COSTS (Hansard, 12 November 1974)

§ LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD ELWYN-JONES)
No, my Lords. The bill of costs has not yet been lodged. I understand from my right honourable friend the Attorney General that the Crown's costs are likely to be in the region of £1,400, but the final figure would be subject to taxation.

§ LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE
My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that Answer. On the assumption therefore that the figure is approximately right and may be reduced 684 by taxation, may I ask the noble and learned Lord this question: is it not really a shame, with due acknowledgement to the retraction appearing this morning in The Time. that people should take a figure which is five times the true figure and then use it as a basis for "Cloud Cuckoo-land" suggestions and for traducing an honourable profession?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, if I may say so it is important that when these difficult matters are discussed they should be discussed on the correct basis of available information.

§ LORD WIGG
My Lords, would not the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agree that, quite apart from traducing a noble profession, as complaints are often made about the abuse of union power, the time has come for an inquiry into the function of what, after all, is the strongest union in this country, a union which can. in fact, mulct every member of the public, rich or poor, to any extent they like without any redress?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, while not accepting my noble friend's generalisations about the Bar, so far as the matter of costs is concerned they are in the last resort subject to taxation by independent officers of the Court.

§ LORD WIGG
My Lords, nevertheless would not the Lord Chancellor agree that there is a case for inquiry? The Bar Council is a trade union acting in the interests of its members without proper regard for the public interest, and is it not time that this matter was looked into so that the kind of statements and counter-statements which are made may be looked at in the light of an objective examination of the facts?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, these matters have been considered over the decades, but I will certainly consider what my noble friend has said. At the moment I am not overwhelmingly convinced that there is a case for what he is proposing.

§ LORD HALE
My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack tell us, if an accused person charged with contempt of court is deemed to have incurred a penalty of £250, what would 685 be the term of imprisonment he would have to serve if he could not find that sum and the term of imprisonment he would have to serve in respect of an estimated £1,400 costs? Can the noble and learned Lord also explain why the figure is left at large without a clear estimate before the court and whether there are any cases in which a person charged with contempt of court has been awarded costs if the case has been found not to be proved?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, my noble friend has asked me a number of interesting questions which I will certainly consider. I know of no case where after non-payment of an order of costs in regard to contempt matters any term of imprisonment followed. Presumably that would be dealt with as a recoverable civil debt, and I know of no penal machinery that would normally attend upon that course, but, of course. there are some litigants so determined upon martyrdom that they may contrive every possibility of ending up in gaol.

§ LORD FOOT
My Lords, I do not know whether I ought to declare a personal interest in this matter, but presuming that I should, I do so declare. May I ask the noble and learned Lord, first, with regard to the costs, when the original estimate was made (I think by Mr. Paul Foot) as to what the costs would amount to, is it not a fact that when Mr. Foot gave a figure of between £7,000 and £8,000 what he was referring to was not only the costs which he would be ordered to pay for the prosecution but also the costs which he and the newspaper concerned had incurred? If that is right, is it not quite wrong for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, to suggest that the original figure was of a magnitude of five times the correct figure? Secondly—and this perhaps is more important—since some eminent lawyers have expressed the view since this case was heard that the court erred in law as to what the law of con tempt now is, would the Government, the Crown, be prepared to give an undertaking not to exact further costs from Mr. Foot and his publication if they were given leave to appeal to the House of Lords in order that the important matter of the present state of the law of contempt could be finally cleared up?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, my understanding of the matter is that application for leave to appeal was refused. I am not certain I am right in that, but I will certainly look into it. If that is so, I certainly have no power to intervene in that decision. So far as the figure of £7,500 is concerned, I understand that it was an estimate made by the defence. In some newspapers, certainly, it was attributed to the costs of the prosecution only, but the element of costs attributable to the costs of the defence would have been largely in the control of the defence itself.

§ LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE
My Lords, since the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has seen fit to introduce my name without giving me notice, may I ask him whether he will accept that my reference to which he has referred was to the use of the figure of £7,500 in the Press and by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and had nothing whatever to do with anything which Mr. Paul Foot may or may not have said?