tapes used in a major drug trial.

The Court of Appeal set aside the injunction slapped on the paper by Puisne Judge the Hon. Mr. Justice Ward. Through the injunction, lawyer Mr. Julian Hall MP stopped The Gazette from publishing the third transcript of tapes used to convict Dexter Dillas in October for his role in a multi-million-dollar drug smuggling ring.

Mr. Hall, whose name appeared in the transcripts, has also filed a libel suit against the paper's Editor Mr. David L. White, The Royal Gazette Ltd., and Bermuda Press (Holdings) Ltd.

But the highest court in Bermuda upheld the paper's argument that the transcripts were part of a public record under the Supreme Court (Records) Act 1955 and therefore it had the right to publish them.

The third transcript appears in today's paper. See pages 4 and 5 "No distinction can be made between a register and a record,'' Court of Appeal acting president the Hon. Mr. Justice Henry ruled. "Both attract qualified privilege of common law.'' But in a last ditch attempt to stop the paper from printing the transcript, Mr. Hall's lawyer Mr. Nicholas Hoskins asked for a stay of execution of the judgment under section five of the Appeals Act.

"If the injunction is lifted as of today, we fear that The Royal Gazette will publish the other transcripts,'' he told the court.

Mr. Justice Henry dismissed the application, explaining the section of the Appeals Act quoted by Mr. Hoskins did not apply.

Outside of court, the paper's lawyer Mr. Kieron Unwin noted that Mr. Hall will have to pay "substantial'' costs for the proceedings which began in the Supreme Court in February.

He also added that he and his clients were pleased with the decision.

"I've been representing The Royal Gazette since 1979,'' he said. "We've been arguing this point of principle since 1980. And we established it in 1981, in the Hector case.

"We're pleased that we've been vindicated by the Court of Appeal in exercising our rights. The public also needs to realise they have rights under the Supreme Court (Records) Act.'' Mr. White called the decision important for the freedom of the Press.

"We did not publish any of the tapes frivolously. We took senior legal advice before publishing and we were assured we had every right to do so. And the Court of Appeal upheld that,'' Mr. White said.

During the appeal Mr. Hall's leading lawyer Mr. David Eady QC said it was uncertain whether the reason behind the Act was dissemination.

He suggested that it 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.'' But yesterday Mr. White noted that legislators had the chance to change the law after former Puisne Judge the Hon. Mr. Justice Melville's decision in the Hector case, but they did not.

"So I assume that legislators are happy with the law,'' he said.

But yesterday Mr. Hall made it clear that he was not happy with the Court of Appeal decision.

In a two page statement, he said he had filed an "urgent'' application with the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal to the Privy Council in London.

If the application is granted, Mr. Hall said the appeal would be heard in London as soon as it was conveniently possible.

If the application is denied, he added, "I shall consider seeking leave directly from the Privy Council''.

"In either case,'' Mr. Hall stressed, "the actions which I have instituted against The Royal Gazette and its Editor will be pressed as vigorously and strenuously as possible. I have no doubt as to the ultimate outcome.''