1. LORD JUSTICE LATHAM: In this matter the Attorney General applies under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 for a civil proceedings order against Mr Purvis. The material upon which the Attorney relies is voluminous and establishes, on its face, a strong case for making such an order. Mr Purvis has, through solicitors, sought to obtain legal aid. His application was originally refused and solicitors acting on his behalf have, according to the correspondence that we have before us, appealed that decision. Having been informed that that was the position by letter of 13th June of this year, the Attorney General replied on 15th June that the matter would be listed today for mention only and that an application would be made for an injunction pending the substantive hearing in the same terms as the application made under section 42.

2. There is, in addition, before us an application by Mr Purvis himself in two separate letters in which he has asked that the matter be adjourned, in part because of his ill health. In the application that he made which was listed immediately before this application we rejected his application for an adjournment on the basis that the material set out in the correspondence from him did not justify an adjournment of that case.

3. Insofar as the application by him is based upon his ill health and his lack of time to deal with the information provided by the Attorney General, the application in relation to these proceedings is equally without merit. However, he raises the same matters in relation to legal aid as were raised by his solicitors and it seems to me that it would not be appropriate for this court to go behind what was indicated to the applicant's solicitors by letter of 15th June, and accordingly, I would be minded to adjourn this application. I would do so for four months on the basis that the case would be listed some time in the 14 days before that four-month period is up.

4. In the meantime, the material before this court, in my judgment, fully justifies an injunction in order to provide for the public, and indeed for the court system, the protection which the Attorney General seeks in the substantive application. I would, accordingly, grant an injunction in the same terms as the application, but with the appropriate amendments to reflect the fact that it is not an order under section 42 and that that injunction should be effective until the hearing of this application or further order.

5. Further, I would suggest that the Attorney General take all appropriate steps to ensure not only that the courts are made aware of the existence of this injunction, but that the courts inform the Attorney General if any attempt is made by Mr Purvis in any way to circumvent the provisions of the injunction, so that the Attorney can consider what steps should be taken in that regard.

6. For those reasons, therefore, I would adjourn the matter, as I have indicated, with an injunction in the terms of the application appropriately amended.

7. MR JUSTICE MUNBY: I agree.