Day 280 - 17 Jul 96 - Page 11
1 ongoing campaign throughout the period we are concerned
2 with. The proposed third parties knew and were involved
3 with the campaign, and if it is right that dissemination of
4 the leaflet was part of the campaign they equally allowed
5 the third party in the campaign, in the dissemination, and
6 I say that gets us to the hurdle we have to meet today,
7 that there is clearly merit in the application for joinder
8 and that that, really, is enough, but that in this case the
9 facts are rather higher, or allow the case to be put on a
10 rather higher basis, or an analysis of the evidence.
11
12 The proposition 'A', as far as I understand it all
13 three were involved over about a 12 month period. The
14 second part, what I draw from that is probably a
15 problematical matter for the Court.
16
17 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Well, that is matter for me.
18
19 MR. STARMER: For the skeleton, yes.
20
21 MR. JUSTICE BELL: But you are entitled--
22
23 MR. STARMER: It transpires, and this is where the schedule is
24 relevant, that the proposed third parties attend
25 substantially more meetings than Mr. Morris and on occasion
26 attend meetings at which neither Ms. Steel or Mr. Morris
27 were there, and the schedule you have been handed, I do --
28 you have been given, as it were, the index to tell you what
29 everything means, but on my analysis, and I am happy to be
30 corrected, if one takes the five key players that we are
31 concerned with today over the period 2nd October to the
32 27th September, one has these figures: attendance by Helen
33 Steel on 31 occasions; attendance by Dave Morris on eight
34 occasions; attendance by Mr. Pocklington on 27 occasions;
35 attendance by Mr. Bishop on 12 occasions and attendance by
36 Mr. Claire on 19 occasions. So those are the figures, and
37 overall the agents in that period attend 46 meetings for
38 which they have disclosed notes, ie, taken together.
39
40 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
41
42 MR. STARMER: Now, I appreciate those figures may be skewed
43 little, because, as I understand it, the proposed third
44 parties may have attended other meetings for which they
45 have been unwilling to disclose their notes because they
46 said for one reason or another they are not relevant, but I
47 think what probably, at least, flows from that is that
48 neither of the Defendants were there, because presumably if
49 they were those notes could have been disclosed.
50
51 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
52
53 MR. STARMER: So if one takes it purely on attendance as a
54 marker of involvement in the group, the figures, in my
55 submission, certainly make good the claim that they are
56 equally or more involved over the most relevant period in
57 terms of this part of the case.
58
59 So far as the actual dissemination is concerned, this
60 is taken from the transcripts, Mr. Pocklington accepting
