The Australian Libellers and Enemies of Free Speech (#9774)

David Irving’s Fight against Australian Suppression of Free Speech David Irving v Jeremy Jones date of documents David Irving after challenging prime minister John Howard in London

on October 23, 1997. (Australia) In the Supreme Court of Western Australia No. 1676 of 1993 BETWEEN: DAVID JOHN CAWDELL IRVING Plaintiff – and – JEREMY JONES First Defendant – and – AUSTRALIA ISRAEL PUBLICATIONS Second Defendant EXHIBIT NOTE Date of Document: 23 February 1994 Filed on behalf of: The First and Second Defendants Date of filing: 1994 Prepared by: Arnold Bloch Leibler Solicitor Code: 54 Solicitors & Consultants DX: 455 Level 21 Tel: 629 7444 333 Collins Street Ref:

AHN:934829:KAV MELBOURNE VIC 3000 (Mr A H Northam) This is the exhibit marked ” AHN1″ referred to by ANTHONY HUGH NORTHAM in his Affidavit sworn this 23rd day of February 1994. Before me: W. K. L. SIEDEL Level 21, 333 Collins Street A Solicitor holding a current Practising Certificate pursuant to the Legal Profession Practice Act 1958 BENNETT & Co. BARRISTERS & SOLICITORS OUR REF: MLB:LB ARN3728 YOUR REF: EJW Messrs E.J.

Wall & Associates Barristers & Solicitors Suite 7 1st Floor 25 Walters Drive HERDSMAN WA 6016 14 October 1993 Dear Sir, Irving v Jones & Ors Supreme Court Action No. 1676 of 1993 As you know from the appearance filed by us on behalf of our client, Mr Jones (filed on 21 September 1993) we are the solicitors for the First Defendant of the above proceedings. The time for filing a Statement of Claim in respect of this matter has now expired.

Pursuant to Order 25 Rule 2(a) of the Supreme Court Rules, our client is entitled to apply for security for costs on the basis that the Plaintiff is ordinarily resident out of the jurisdiction. We note that the Writ confirms Mr Irving resides at 81 Duke Street, London. We have held off bringing an application for security for costs until such time as we saw your client’s Statement of Claim.

This would give us an opportunity to properly estimate and assess the level of security that would be required for this action. In these circumstances our client is not prepared to tolerate or agree to any undue delay in the filing of the Statement of Claim. If we are not served with the Statement of Claim by close of business on Friday, 15 October 1993, it is our intention on Monday morning to apply by way of summons for an order dismissing the action and for costs.

In the meantime would you please take instructions from your client as to whether or not he is prepared to provide security for costs. As soon as we see your Statement of Claim we will let you know the amount we have in mind.

Alternatively, please take instructions as to whether or not your client would agree to provide an initial amount by way of security for costs (say $15,000) subject to our client having the right to apply at any time for an order from the Court increasing the amount of the security for costs to an appropriate amount. We await hearing from you. Yours faithfully signed BENNET & co. E J.

WALL & ASSOCIATES BARRISTERS & SOLICITORS Our Ref: IRVI2250.1.EJW:LM Your Ref: MLB:1bARN3728 15 October 1993 Messr, Bennett & Co Barristers & Solicitors 10th Floor Hamersley House 191 St George’s Terrace PERTH WA 6000 BY FAX NO: 3215501 Dear Sir. IRVING -v- JONES AND ORS COURT ACTION NO. 1676 OF 1993 Receipt is acknowledge of your letter dated 14th October, 1993.

We have not been served with the First Defendant’s Memorandum of Appearance and receipt of your faxed letter today is the first knowledge indeed that the Writ of Summon. had been served. Once we have received service of the Memorandum of Appearance, we will then proceed to file and serve our Statement of Claim in accordance with the time limits imposed by the rules of the Court In any event we advise you that any application for security of costs will be opposed and vigorously so.

We are the solicitors who have had the conduct of this matter on behalf of Mr Irving in relation to his successful application to have the Federal Government’s decision to ban our client reviewed. The subject publication in the Australia/Israel Review was placed before the Minister, Mr Hand , and was relied upon by Mr Hand (Recording to the Full Court of the Federal erroneously so) when he made his decision to refuse our client a Business Class Visitor’s Visa.

The decision to refuse our client Business Class Visitor’s Visa has deprived him of an opportunity of visiting Australia to sell his books and to carry out his research work in libraries and archives. There is a direct link therefore between the defamatory content of the Australia Israel/Review Publication and our client not being allowed to come to this country and earn income to carry out his profession as an Historian. Yours faithfully signed E.J.

WALL & ASSOCIATES