Gazette over the Dillas drug tapes.

The fight is over whether the paper should have been allowed to print transcripts of the tapes, which mention him.

Yesterday Mr. Hall said he might not go ahead with an appeal to the Privy Council in London on the issue.

Instead, he might concentrate on a coming libel case in which he will seek "substantial damages'' from Royal Gazette editor Mr. David L. White and Bermuda Press (Holdings) Ltd. for publishing the transcripts.

In the Appeal Court in July, the Gazette won the lifting of an injunction which banned the printing of a third transcript from the tapes. The injunction, asked for by Mr. Hall, followed the paper's printing of two earlier transcripts.

Mr. Hall won the right to take the injunction battle to the highest court available to Bermudians -- the Privy Council.

But yesterday, following the Appeal Court's release of the reasons for its decision, he said he might not go ahead.

The transcripts were from tapes made in Casemates prison and used to jail Dexter Dillas for his role in a multi-million dollar drug smuggling ring. The three Appeal Court judges agreed with the paper that the transcript was part of court records open to the public.

Yesterday they revealed the thinking behind their decision to lift the injunction.

Mr. Hall said: "The Court of Appeal granted me leave to appeal this decision to the Privy Council, because they agreed that the case raises a matter of law of substantial public importance.

"Now that we have received the written reasons of the Court of Appeal judges I shall be immediately asking my leading counsel whether we should still continue with that appeal, or whether we should simply move forward as quickly as possible for the trial against these defendants seeking substantial damages.'' The transcripts had been published, he said. "I don't really care about the injunction any more.'' In the battle over the injunction, he added, "all I wanted to show was that if you want to libel anybody, all you have to do is put it on a piece of paper and have it deposited into court''.

All that was needed then was for it to be published.

Mr. Hall said he had to consider the expense of going to the Privy Council to prove a point that might benefit others more than him.

A key issue considered by the Appeal Court was whether the Gazette had the legal protection of "qualified privilege'' which enabled it to publish the transcript.

Royal Gazette lawyer Mr. Kieron Unwin said: "All three judges have confirmed the public nature of the records in question, and that was always the basis of our case.

"It's important that the public realise these are public documents that they're entitled to see.

"We were doing nothing more than bringing to the attention of the public that which they were entitled to go and get themselves.

"Allegations of malice are completely refuted.'' It was a mark of the importance of the case that the judges had each written separate decisions, he said.

A crucial Act of Parliament argued over during the case was the Supreme Court (Records) Act, 1955.

In his judgement, acting president Mr. Justice Henry said Parliament had allowed public access to court records "in very wide terms''.

Mr. Justice Georges said: "The broad range of documents which were in fact made public may have led to unintended consequences.

"It may well be that no thought was given to the possibility of scandalous material ... becoming public documents by reason of the Act.'' Mr. Justice Huggins said the Act allowed the public to see court documents made by private individuals who were not under the same restraints as those compiling official registers.

"The result of injury to individuals is increased,'' he said. But that was not sufficient reason for the court changing the law on qualified privilege.

Substantial costs were awarded against Mr. Hall.