Appeal No.	 EAT/283/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS

	At the Tribunal
	On 26 June 2000

Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY
MR P R A JACQUES CBE
MR K M YOUNG CBE

MR CLIVE WILLIAMS	APPELLANT

THE DEVON & CORNWALL CONSTABULARY & OTHERS	RESPONDENTS

Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING – EX PARTE

Revised

	APPEARANCES

For the Appellant	MR NICK BOOTH
(of Counsel)
Appearing under the Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme	

	MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY:	We had been under the impression at 10 o’clock this morning that there was going to be no attendance because we had seen a letter from Mr Williams last week. He did not say he was not going to attend, but it just said his case remained unaltered. He had nothing further to add, nor any further documents to submit. We inferred, as it now turns out incorrectly, that that meant that he was not going to be present or represented. We are of course delighted to see both him and Mr Booth, appearing under the ELAAS scheme. But because of that letter, we had discussed the case extensively at 10 o’clock, and I have just confirmed with my colleagues that our view now is the same as it was then. Namely, that whilst any case based on perversity is difficult, we do think that this case ought to go forward to a full hearing. We shall order that it does so against both respondents.

1.	We shall direct Chairman’s Notes in relation to Mr Salisbury from the preliminary hearing and the full hearing. In the case of Mr Salisbury, Mr Finnemore and, I think, to be on the safe side, Mr Ferguson, from the full hearing. 

2.	There will be the usual order as to skeleton arguments for the full hearing. 

3.	MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY:	Mr Booth we mean no discourtesy or disrespect to Mr Williams at all, but is he likely to be in receipt of legal assistance hereafter?

4.	Mr Booth:	My instructions are that if he would qualify on income grounds that so far he was apparently turned down for Legal Aid on the basis of merits, but perhaps in the light of today’s decision that might well be reconsidered.

5.	MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY:	We hope that it is. We discussed that in advance. Again, it is not a criticism of Mr Williams, but of course any appeal here is an appeal only on a point of law. This is a case with a history and quite a complex background and we do think that Mr Williams, whom we consider to have an arguable case, would be assisted if he were able to resort to legal representation.

6.	Mr Booth:	I am very grateful to that, and that will appear no doubt in the transcript of what you have said and that will no doubt assist Mr Williams in his appeal against the Legal Aid Board’s refusal.

7.	MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY:	We do rather take the view that the grounds of appeal ought to be refined. Perhaps the better course is simply to say that Mr Williams has liberty to submit amended grounds of appeal. We will not put a time limit on it because it may be better if that awaits the outcome of his Legal Aid.

8.	Finally we say this for the record. We had all seen the letter (at pages 14 and 15). The decision that we have reached that this is an arguable case is in no way influenced by that letter. That letter ought not to be in the bundle. The reason it is in the bundle results, I suspect, from Mr Williams’ own lack of experience in these matters. It is necessary that that letter be removed from the bundle prior to the full hearing, which will of course be before a differently constituted tribunal.