for Mr. Julian Hall in a Court of Appeal hearing, was incorrect. Mr. Scott is simply a lawyer with Hall Associates.

The Royal Gazette yesterday began its fight in the Court of Appeal to have an injunction banning publication of further transcripts in a major drug trial lifted.

The injunction was slapped on the Island's only daily newspaper in February by lawyer Mr. Julian Hall MP who is also suing the paper for libel linked to the publication of tapes that were used to jail Dexter Dillas in October for his role in a drug smuggling ring.

The injunction names Editor Mr. David L. White, The Royal Gazette Ltd., and Bermuda Press (Holdings) Ltd.

But yesterday Mr. Richard Hartley QC, representing the newspaper, argued that Puisne Judge the Hon. Mr. Justice Ward was wrong to uphold the injunction which stops the paper from publishing a third transcript in the Dillas case pending the outcome of the libel trial.

He stressed that the paper had the right to publish the transcripts under the 1955 Supreme Court (Records) Act.

And Mr. Hartley, who is visiting from England, noted that the Act gives any member of the public the right to inspect any court records and obtain copies from the Supreme Court Registrar. He said the only documents excluded are: Pleadings or other documents relating to civil proceedings still going on; Any depositions or other documents relating to any part of any proceedings taken under the 1929 Indictable Offences Act from which the public has been excluded; A discretion statement or report of a medical examiner in matrimonial causes; A judge's notes of evidence; and Documents in the course of a trial under the 1920 Official Secrets Act.

"It is our case that there never could be a clearer statute,'' Mr. Hartley said.

He also noted that former Puisne Judge the Hon. Mr. Justice Melville ruled, in the 1981 Hector vs. The Royal Gazette Ltd. libel case, that the "Mid-Ocean News'' had the right to publish a letter including accusations against former Magistrate and lawyer Mr. Hector even though the letter was not referred to or read in court.

The sister paper was covered by the same Supreme Court (Records) Act and the letter, like the transcripts in this case, were privileged documents, Mr.

Hartley added.

"But in our present case Mr. Ward has held that privilege does not extend to publications made to the public generally, but only to a limited public that has an interest in receiving the information,'' he said.

"So there are these two conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court on the extent of the Act.

"We rely on the word `any' (person). It could not be wider, similar with the documents as part of court records. There are no restrictions whatsoever.

"What the newspaper is doing is informing its readers of something they could all obtain themselves under the Act.

"We submit that the learned judge was wrong to interpret this statute in the limited way he did.'' But Mr. Hall's lawyer, Mr. David Eady QC argued newspapers were not necessarily entitled to qualified privilege under the Act.

"There are many matters that newspapers can consider of public interest,'' he said, "but it's a very different matter to show newspapers have a duty to publish them.'' The publication of a rumour or suspicion that the public is in danger of something could be considered a newspaper's duty, he said.

"But what is sought to be published here is a series of conversations between a man who is in prison to his prison mate who denies that he said the things anyway.'' Mr. Eady also pointed out that parts of the transcripts published were not read out in court.

And referring to Mr. Hartley's argument about Hector vs. The Royal Gazette Ltd., he said Mr. Melville's ruling was null and void because it was made in a trial that ended in a hung jury and ordered to be retried.

The hearing resumes this morning.

MEETING OF THE LEGAL MINDS -- Royal Gazette lawyers Mr. Richard Hartley QC and Mr. Kieron Unwin, above left, leave the Court of Appeal at the end of yesterday's hearing along with Mr. Michael Scott and Mr. David Eady QC, above right, who are representing Mr. Julian Hall.