Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Ltd

Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Ltd

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 the ordinary processes of law. The court's general policy should discourage litigants from escaping the normal processes of the law. Refusal to allow video link evidence does not infringe Article 6 ECHR as the claimant is not denied access to justice; he can attend court in person.

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 on Evidence by Video Link)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; video link 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 on Evidence by Video Link)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a claimant fugitive from justice can give evidence by video link to avoid arrest and extradition
  2. 2 Whether the court should permit evidence by video link as an indulgence to a claimant evading criminal process
  3. 3 Whether refusal to allow video link evidence infringes Article 6 ECHR right of access to court

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 the ordinary processes of law. The court's general policy should discourage litigants from escaping the normal processes of the law. Refusal to allow video link evidence does not infringe Article 6 ECHR as the claimant is not denied access to justice; he can attend court in person.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; video link order set aside.

Orders

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