1. I attended the hearing before the Divisional Court on 18 February 1997 when an application was heard in respect of myself and my brother Harry Desmond 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, I continued for most of the afternoon sitting to address the court in detail as to the reasons why I considered that none of my actions were vexatious.

3. I was permitted to address the court in detail regarding the various actions that I had been involved in not only on my own, but in relation to my brother jointly for at least one and a quarter hours.

4. After I had finished my submissions, my brother Harry then proceeded to address the court as HM Attorney-General had relied on only 8 actions in support of the application for a Civil Proceedings Order against him, some of which he had also been co-plaintiff along with myself.

5. My brother began by reading out fully his affidavit sworn on the 18 day of February 1997, and then began to refer the court to his skeleton argument.

6. He then attempted to take the court through his 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 himself under section 42(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1981.

7. After my brother had finished reading the list of issues, he was informed by Lord Justice Rose that he 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.

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

9. My brother then persuaded the court to briefly listen to argument relating to the length of the proposed Civil Proceedings Order to be made against him, and also in relation to the fact that he 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.

10. My brother finished making these submissions at 3.30 pm after having only addressed the court for some 10 minutes or so, and he was unable to address the court at all relating to any of the 8 sets of legal proceedings that he had been involved in.

11. Lord Justice Rose then informed my brother that he may not address the court any further and stated that “You are guillotined”.

12. Both Lord Justice Rose and Mr Justice Hooper then retired and returned later to deliver the judgment which was given by Lord Justice Rose.

13. When the court returned to deliver their judgment my brother attempted to hand up some documents relating to perjury that he considered had been committed by various solicitors involved in his cases and stated that "you did not give me the time to put my case forward on perjury which is on your desk now" when seeking leave to appeal.

14. I therefore believe that my brother was denied natural justice by being denied the fundamental right to be heard fully in his defence in respect of the various issues of law pertaining to the application, and also relating to the various actions that he had been involved in.

15. I do not believe that my brother had a fair determination of his civil rights before the Divisional Court, especially when I had been permitted to address the court in detail for well over an hour and he had only been given ten minutes.

16. I also believe that this was simultaneously in breach of the statutory provisions of section 42(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, which requires that a Respondent should be given a full opportunity of being heard before any Civil Proceedings Order may be made against him.

17. I therefore most respectfully submit that the hearing in respect of my brother was in breach of article 6(1) of the Convention, as he was denied the very rudiments of a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal.