1. I attended the hearing before the Divisional Court on the 18 day of February 1997 when an application was heard in respect of myself and the 1 Applicant Lewis Frank Foley for Civil Proceedings Orders to be made in respect of ourselves under section 42(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 in respect of civil proceedings brought by both of us.

2. After Mr Ian Burnett of counsel for HM Attorney-General had addressed the court in the morning after having referred in detail to the evidence in support of the application my brother Frank Lewis Foley continued for most of the afternoon sitting to address the court in detail as to the reasons why he considered that none of his actions were vexatious.

3. I then proceeded to address the court as HM Attorney-General had relied on 8 actions in support of the application for a Civil Proceedings Order against me which I had also been co-plaintiff along with my brother.

4. I began by reading out fully my affidavit sworn on the 18 day of February 1997 and then referred the court to my skeleton argument relating to the preliminary issue of a jury trial which was thereafter refused.

5. I then attempted to take the court through my main skeleton argument which related to a number of important issues including the length of any proposed Civil Proceedings Order to be made in respect of myself under section 42(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1981.

6. After I had finished reading the list of issues I was informed by Lord Justice Rose that I could not address the court in relation to any of the issues so raised including those relating to the status of the respective Law Officers as they were inarguable.

7. Lord Justice Rose also informed me that I would not be able to address the court after 3.30 pm that afternoon although I had been given no prior indication at all by the court that there was to be any limitation of time to be imposed for my submissions.

8. I then persuaded the court to listen to argument relating to the length of the proposed Civil Proceedings Order to be made against me and also in relation to the fact that I considered that insufficient evidence had been placed before the court in relation to any sub-delegation of authority by HM Attorney-General to the Solicitor-General under section 1(1)(c) of the Law Officers Act 1944 and any further consent for the making of the application or consideration of the merits of such application by the Solicitor-General thereafter.

9. I finished making these submissions at 3.30 pm and Lord Justice Rose then informed me that I may not address the court any further and both members of the court then retired and returned later to deliver the judgment which was given by Lord Justice Rose.

10. I verily believe therefore that I was denied natural justice by being denied the fundamental right to be heard fully in my defence and that this was simultaneously in breach of the statutory provisions of section 42(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981.

11. I would therefore most respectfully submit to this Honourable Court that the purported Civil Proceedings Order made by the Divisional Court against me is rendered a nullity thereby and has been made without and/or in excess of jurisdiction and ought therefore to be set aside by this Honourable Court ex debito justitiae.