Day 165 - 27 Sep 95 - Page 21
1
2 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Which net?
3
4 MR. MORRIS: I was going to explain, the net over the whole
5 group and the whole -- that, for example, for myself, it is
6 arguable whether there is any evidence whatsoever brought
7 by the Plaintiffs that at the stated times that
8 I distributed the leaflet complained of, the London
9 Greenpeace fact sheet. So, we have an attempt by the
10 Plaintiffs to extend a what you might call common
11 purpose -----
12
13 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Mr. Morris, you are speaking in generalities
14 when what I want is some real help ---
15
16 MR. MORRIS: Yes.
17
18 MR. JUSTICE BELL: -- on the points of principle and actual
19 position in relation to these notes. Ms. Steel has made a
20 number of points in relation to that which I will
21 consider. Quite frankly, I do not want to be preached at
22 about whether we are going down the right path or not with
23 regard to blocking out bits of documents. I have the Court
24 of Appeal in G E Capital telling me what the right attitude
25 to that is. I must faithfully observe what they have
26 said. What I want is good hard points one way or the other
27 in relation to the predicament we have here.
28
29 MR. MORRIS: Yes, the last point I am making is important
30 because it may be that the general activities of London
31 Greenpeace are not relevant and, in fact, my involvement in
32 London Greenpeace may not be relevant. What the Plaintiffs
33 have to prove is that I gave -- I presume the law is -- on
34 one occasion a copy of this London Greenpeace fact sheet to
35 a member of the public. So, if the activities of the group
36 and my involvement in them -- whether I spoke or not at the
37 meetings is another matter on the campaign against the IMF,
38 or whatever -- if the character of the group is relevant,
39 then, of course, the blanked out passages are relevant and
40 should be disclosed.
41
42 If the character of the group is not relevant, then that
43 will, obviously, save a great deal of time in terms of
44 court time, in terms of witness evidence and, basically,
45 the Plaintiffs are left with the simple, clear and obvious
46 proposition that they have to prove that I handed out a
47 copy of the London Greenpeace fact sheet. They are left
48 with the proposition, of course, that they do not have any
49 evidence on that, as far as I can see.
50
51 One example of what a blanked out bit might say is it might
52 say, regarding the campaign against the IMF, or the World
53 Bank, that it was only three or four people involved in
54 that particular campaign in the group. So that would be
55 relevant because it would go to the nature of the London
56 Greenpeace group, how it conducted its campaigns. But, I
57 mean, if that is not relevant, how the group conducted its
58 campaigns, then we are left with the simple proposition
59 that the Plaintiffs have to prove, the only thing of
60 relevance really is, did I hand out on a particular day to
