Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1573 (11 November 2003)

Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1573 (11 November 2003)

It was wrong to make a video link order for a claimant who is a fugitive from justice convicted of a serious offence and seeking to avoid extradition. The court's policy should not facilitate evasion of the criminal process. Refusal of a VCF order does not deny access to justice; the claimant can attend in person. Written statements should be excluded if the claimant refuses to attend for cross-examination.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 1573
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Roman Polanski; Appellant/defendant: The Condé Nast Publications Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (libel) / Appeal From High Court (interlocutory Order)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; VCF order set aside
Legal Topics
Video Link Evidence, Access to Justice, Abuse of Process, Hearsay Evidence, Extradition, Article 6 ECHR
Civil Procedure Defamation Human Rights Video Link Evidence Access to Justice Abuse of Process Hearsay Evidence Extradition +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roman Polanski

Respondent/claimant

The Condé Nast Publications Limited

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (libel) / Appeal From High Court (interlocutory Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a claimant fugitive from justice can give evidence by video link to avoid extradition risk in a libel trial
  2. 2 Whether refusal of video link constitutes denial of access to justice under Article 6 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether written statements can be admitted if the claimant refuses to attend for cross-examination

Ratio Decidendi

It was wrong to make a video link order for a claimant who is a fugitive from justice convicted of a serious offence and seeking to avoid extradition. The court's policy should not facilitate evasion of the criminal process. Refusal of a VCF order does not deny access to justice; the claimant can attend in person. Written statements should be excluded if the claimant refuses to attend for cross-examination.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; VCF order set aside

Orders

  • Judge's direction for video link evidence in favour of Polanski set aside
  • If Polanski seeks to put in statements as hearsay and does not attend for cross-examination, statements to be excluded