Day 280 - 17 Jul 96 - Page 05

     
     1        involved.
     2
     3             So far as Mr. Morris is concerned there was an
     4        amendment later on, July '92, which is the bottom of my
     5        paragraph 5, where an additional claim was laid against him
     6        that on the 1st March, '90 further distributed in that he
     7        sent a leaflet out with letters to a number of unidentified
     8        individuals.  As I understand it, there were enquiries
     9        which said there were enquiries coming into the office in
    10        Caledonian Road and that various people were replying to,
    11        which included putting leaflets in envelopes, et cetera.
    12
    13             My Lord, what I should say before I go any further is
    14        that I have been picking up the facts in evidence to use in
    15        this argument as I go along, and anything I say should not
    16        be taken as a concession on behalf of the Defendants, or if
    17        I get anything wrong.
    18
    19   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No.
    20
    MR. STARMER:   The amendment to the claim, then, came in April
    22        1996, and this really forms the basis of this application
    23        coming now, because it considerably extends the scope of
    24        the Plaintiff's case and unless I am much mistaken about
    25        the pleadings they now seek to argue that by virtue of
    26        involvement the Defendants are liable for publication of
    27        the leaflet "wheresoever and whensoever it has been
    28        distributed and published within the jurisdiction" from, as
    29        I say, the unspecified date 4 October '89 until the date of
    30        writ, 20th September 1990, and I say for completion that
    31        was it was only on the 27th June that the Court of Appeal
    32        dismissed the appeal from that decision and, therefore,
    33        leading, as it were, directly to this application.
    34
    35   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Was it not appreciable though that if there
    36        is a good claim for contribution it could be mounted on
    37        what could be appreciated from the original inquiry agents
    38        statements and such of the notes as were then disclosed?
    39        May be not the full extent of the way it could be argued,
    40        but a degree of infiltration and participation in the
         activities of Greenpeace London was apparent was it not?
    42
    43   MR. STARMER:  My Lord, I say that it is conceivable that the
    44        thinnest of the cases could have been sketched out before
    45        the amendment.  But before the amendment there were only
    46        the specific dates that the Plaintiffs were claiming in
    47        relation to, and so they were still, up until whenever it
    48        was, April of this year, focusing their attention on six
    49        specific dates.  It was not a general liaised pleading that
    50        extended over the whole period, and therefore they were
    51        claiming, essentially, it is the particular actions of
    52        these two Defendants on particular dates and/or their
    53        involvement that focuses on those particular dates, not the
    54        overall publication.
    55
    56             Secondly, that, as I understand it -- and I obviously
    57        have to be corrected if I am wrong -- the original
    58        statements of the proposed third parties did not specify
    59        the degree of their involvement, it was the supplementary
    60        statements which came--