The Gazette 1967/71

start of a case, that he had some indirect knowl edge of the issues involved. [Daily Telegraph, 4 November 1970] Note— It will be realised that the remarks of the President of the High Court to the effect that he would be reluctant to try some of the accused in the Arms Conspiracy Trial (who were subse quently acquitted) were not so unusual as to warrant the newspaper comments which ensued. BRITAIN BROKE HUMAN RIGHTS, SAY AFRICAN ASIANS Claims by thirty-one East African Asians that the British Government broke the European Convention on Human Rights, by refusing them admission to Britain, are to open before the European Human Rights Commission in Stras bourg. At the four-day secret hearing, lawyers acting for the Asians who are mostly British passport- holders and United Kingdom citizens, succeeded in establishing that there was a prima facie breach of the convention which requires further investiga tion by the commission. Some of the applicants were claiming that the conduct of the British authorities amounted to "inhumane and degrading treatment" contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. Others claimed that there had been a breach of Article 8 which guarantees respect for family life. A number have invoked Article 14 which pro vides that the rights and freedoms of the conven tion should be secured without discrimination. All have applied to the commission for legal aid. Thirty of the applicants were represented by Sir Dingle Foot, Q.C., the former Labour Solicitor- General, and Sir Arthur Driver, President of the Law Society in 1961. They faced a strong contingent of barristers appearing for the British Government. The claims arose out of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1968, which deprived East African Asians with United Kingdom citizenship and British passports of the automatic right to set up home in Britain. Twenty-one of the applicants were detained by the British authorities when they tried to enter Britain from Kenya. They told the commission that the Kenyan Government would not allow them to return to Kenya and that it would be 120

The loophole exists because the offender in each case may not, in fact, be the owner of the car. The car may be on loan or hired and since it is the owner who is summoned the words "you did park" are incorrect in many cases. The practice of summonsing the registered owners of cars has been a thorn in the side of the hire-car companies because often they do not know that a £1 ticket has been issued until they get a summons which may cost them £5 in court. The only way, however, the actual offender can be prosecuted is when his name and address is taken at the time of the offence. This occurs very rarely. The question now is : How many offenders will get off before the Gardai decide to change the wording of the summonses. It's good luck for motorists anyway. [Irish Independent, 3 November 1970] LIBEL CASE DECLINED BY JUDGE Because a trial judge found that he was person ally acquainted with some of the people concerned in a libel case he was due to hear—and his fear that justice might not be done—a High Court action came to a standstill yesterday. It was the first time, said old legal hands of more than forty years' experience in the High Court, that such a situation had arisen. Overnight, Mr. Justice John Stephenson, told by High Court administrators that he was to hear the issue, saw the legal papers in the case and immediately ruled that he should be taken off it. He realised he was acquainted with certain people involved in the case. Another High Court judge, who was free to hear the case, also looked at the legal papers and found himself in the same position. All other High Court judges were engaged in other cases. The parties involved, when told of the unusual position in which the law found itself, immedi ately agreed to an adjournment of the case. The case to be heard before a judge and jury, will now be heard on Thursday. It is a libel action brought by the Church of Scientology against Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith, M.P. for East Grinstead. Although in High Court history there has not been an exactly similar case—such as that which brought justice to a halt yesterday—:there have been cases where a judge has confessed, at the