23. The Appeals Chamber finds that the Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the factors cited in support of her Motion to Exceed Word Limit constitute exceptional circumstances. She has asserted the complexity of the legal and factual issues on appeal[1] without defining exactly what these complexities are. It is also well established that the number of grounds and sub-grounds of appeal,[2] the number of authorities cited,[3] and the extensiveness of the trial record and length of the trial[4] do not inevitably impede an appellant’s ability to present salient and cogent appeal briefs within the prescribed word limit, and that these factors do not therefore, in and of themselves, constitute exceptional circumstances. Regarding the Appellant’s assertion that an extension of the word limit is also necessitated by the Trial Chamber’s refusal to grant the Appellant’s requests for leave to appeal three of the Trial Chamber’s preliminary decisions, the Appeals Chamber notes that the Appellant has failed to explain precisely why this is the case. The mere fact that the Trial Chamber denied the requests for leave to appeal these three decisions does not invariably prevent the Appellant from concisely discussing the most relevant aspects of these decisions within the prescribed word limit.

24. While a number of the issues on appeal, including an examination of European and international law on freedom of expression, are important issues, the significance of the issues on appeal does not in and of itself prevent an appellant from presenting sound submissions on those issues within the set word limit.[5] The quality and effectiveness of an appellant’s brief are not contingent on the length of the submissions, but on the cogency and clarity of the arguments presented.[6] In the instant case the Appeal is somewhat unnecessarily repetitive.[7] Also, the discussion of certain related issues extending over numerous paragraphs could be consolidated into fewer paragraphs, and more concise phrasing used throughout the Appeal as a whole.[8]  In view of the foregoing therefore, the Appellant’s request for extension of the word limit is, by majority, Judge Morrison dissenting, denied.

CONSIDERING that the appropriate length of a response is primarily dictated by the nature and scope of the issues which it needs to address and not necessarily by the size of the material submitted by the applicant;

Pages 2-3:

RECALLING that, pursuant to paragraphs 6(a) and 7 of the Practice Direction on Lengths of Briefs and Motions, an appellant’s and a respondent’s briefs in an appeal from a trial judgment should not exceed 30,000 words where the appeal is not restricted to sentencing issues;[1]

RECALLING that, pursuant to paragraph 17 of the Practice Direction, a party must seek advance authorization to exceed the word limits set out in the Practice Direction, and must provide an explanation of the exceptional circumstances that necessitate the oversized filing;

RECALLING FURTHER that, pursuant to the same paragraph of the Practice Direction, a judge may dispose of a motion for an extension of a word limit without hearing the other party unless it is considered that there is a risk that the other party may be prejudiced;

EMPHASIZING that the quality and effectiveness of an appeal brief do not depend on its length, but on the clarity and cogency of the arguments presented and that, therefore, excessively long briefs do not necessarily facilitate the efficient administration of justice;[2]