find out if it can publish the final transcript of tapes used in a major drug trial.

The Royal Gazette , on February 20, published two transcripts of tapes that were used to convict Dexter Dillas in October for his role in a multi-million-dollar drug smuggling ring.

But days later, lawyer Mr. Julian Hall MP filed a libel suit against the paper and slapped an injunction on Editor Mr. David L. White, The Royal Gazette Ltd., and Bermuda Press (Holdings) Ltd., to prevent the paper from printing further transcripts.

The injunction was upheld by Puisne Judge the Hon. Mr. Justice Ward in April.

But the paper, through its lawyers Mr. Kieron Unwin and visiting lawyer Mr.

Richard Hartley QC, has argued that it has the right, under the 1955 Supreme Court (Records) Act, to publish the transcripts.

And yesterday Mr. Hartley stressed to the Court of Appeal that the Act clearly gives any member of the public the right to inspect public records and obtain copies, with few exceptions.

"It is really quite ludicrous to suggest that one has the right to inspect records and have certified copies without having the right to disseminate the information,'' he said.

Mr. Hartley was responding to arguments presented by Mr. Hall's lawyer, Mr.

David Eady QC, from England.

Mr. Eady said it was uncertain whether the reason behind the Act was dissemination.

He suggested that the Act provided for two-tier access to information.

"It is not unreasonable to imagine information from the legislature widely available to the public, while there is other material that the public can see if they want to see it,'' Mr. Eady said.

"When it comes to material of this kind, there is no reason why the legislature would wish to promulgate such information for gossip or titillation.'' "Legislation in Bermuda has taken the view that there is no need in this community to provide statutory privilege for the community at large,'' he added. "In other words, there's no reason for damaging one's reputation in the community at large.'' Mr. Eady also argued there was difference between a public document created by the legislature and a public record that included privately-created information.

And he said as far as common law applied, newspapers seeking to publish such information must show a social or moral duty as well as the fact that it was for public interest.

He also warned that under common law, newspapers must prove that what they publish is fair and accurate comment or the "publisher publishes to his peril''.

Common law privilege only protects newspapers when there is a duty to communicate "scandalous material from an impeccable source or when there is less authority but there is some urgent matter of health or public safety, Mr.

Eady added.

But Mr. Hartley stressed there is a common law privilege because under the Supreme Court (Records) Act "the public at large'' has the right to look at public records kept by the Registrar.

"A public document is one that is open to public inspection,'' he said.

"There is no two tier, three tier, or four tier access.'' Mr. Hartley said if that was the case a person who showed a copy of a public document to someone else could have a writ served on them.

"The public at large has the right to inspect public records and the right to communicate to each other what they have seen,'' he said. "They are protected by qualified privilege applying common law privilege.'' Concluding that both he and Mr. Eady agreed that the 1955 Act was very clear, Mr. Hartley said: "We part on what it says''.

He stressed that if the Act intended to prevent records obtained from being published, it would have included that restriction.

And he pointed out the Act was now wider.

It had been replaced by the 1922 Record and Registration Act which prevented the public from obtaining copies of public records, Mr. Hartley said, noting that before the 1922 Act, the public did not have the right to even inspect public records.

Mr. Hartley described Mr. Eady's argument about newspapers printing "scurrilous or unsubstantiated material'' under qualified privilege as a "red herring''.

"We've all had experiences when a witness deliberately introduces material that he knows would be of embarrassment to a person and the newspaper, rightly so, publishes this,'' he said.

He also pointed out that the word "duty'' did not appear in Mr. Ward's decision.

The Court of Appeal reserved its decision on the matter. Acting president the Hon. Mr. Justice Henry said the tribunal hoped to give it next week.