Video link

Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Ltd [2003] EWCA Civ 1573

CPR rule 32.3 provides: ‘The court may allow a witness to give evidence through a video link or by other means.’ There is no absolute rule as to the proper application of rule 32.3. The claimant, the celebrated film director of Polish and French nationality, who was living in France, commenced libel proceedings in this country although he could more appropriately have done so either in the US, where the principal publication took place, or in France, where he lived. He had not done so because he had fled the US in 1978 after pleading guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl, for which he had yet to be sentenced. He applied for an order under rule 32.3 to give his evidence by video conference link (VCF) because he did not wish to give his evidence in London lest he be arrested and extradited to the US. The court’s general policy should be to discourage litigants from escaping the normal processes of the law rather than facilitate it, and having regard to all the circumstances of this case, it was wrong to make a VCF order. The claimant was a fugitive offender, convicted of a serious offence for which he had yet to be sentenced. His libel action was a ‘volunteer action’ and he was invoking the English court’s jurisdiction for his own benefit, not defending a claim against him. He should not be permitted to litigate on special terms. Such an order did not infringe his rights under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He was not being denied access to the court. The ‘very essence’ of his right was not impaired. He could and should attend court to give his evidence before the jury in the usual way.