Day 280 - 17 Jul 96 - Page 12

     
     1        that probably he put copies of the leaflet complained of in
     2        envelopes in answer to enquiries on the 29th November.
     3        That was the day that he spent the whole day at London
     4        Greenpeace, arriving at about 10.30 in the morning and
     5        leaving at 6.30 at night.  He accepts there was another
     6        occasion when he and Jane Laporte put copies of the
     7        leaflets complained of in envelopes when no-one was in the
     8        office.
     9
    10             So, that is activity that the Defendants were not
    11        directly involved in, and his view: "That it would be good
    12        if I showed willing to take some part.  I thought it would
    13        be better to show willing and help out where I could in the
    14        office."   So if one take that is as his general attitude
    15        the inference is that he involved himself in the same way
    16        as other members or participants in the group so as not to
    17        distinguish himself, for obvious reasons.
    18
    19             Mr. Bishop really concerns the events of the George
    20        Roby, and this is where there was a stall that he was
         staffing and for substantial periods.  People came up to
    22        the leaflets, and the important feature is that he was
    23        there alone some of the time, and the Defendants were not
    24        there.  And as for Mr. Clare, he fairly freely admits in
    25        his supplementary statement that he "... disseminated
    26        copies of the leaflet complained of by putting them in
    27        envelopes in response to enquiries.  On the basis of that
    28        it ought not to have been sensible for me to have refused
    29        to help."  Except for so, again in relation to him, I say
    30        that he would inevitably have tried to fade into the
    31        background by making sure he was involved in a similar way
    32        and to a similar extent as the other people there so as not
    33        to distinguish himself from them.
    34
    35             So I put forward in paragraph 10 two compelling
    36        reasons, over and above I say, having already shown the
    37        merit.  The first is that the proposed third parties were
    38        arguably more involved for the reasons I have outlined.
    39        And the second is this -- which it seems to me is the
    40        inescapable conclusion from the amended statement of claim
         -- that the Defendants seek to hold the Defendants (sic)
    42        liable for the actions of the three of them, Pocklington,
    43        Bishop and Clare, because of the claim whensoever and
    44        wheresoever in the jurisdiction on the specific date to the
    45        20th September 1990.  I keep saying 'Plaintiff' when I
    46        should say the 'Defendant', but I hope the thrust of what I
    47        am saying is there.
    48
    49             And in that context I have extracted Mr. Rampton's
    50        comments after cross-examination of Mr. Bishop in support
    51        of my submission because, unless I have misunderstood his
    52        point, he appears to be saying if he is right about the
    53        agency, in other words that the Defendants are liable in
    54        relation, because they, as it were, have been party to or
    55        procured others to make the leaflet available, he is
    56        entitled to claim in relation to the George Roby public
    57        house, which is the event they have just been
    58        cross-examining on, which appears in the middle of his
    59        comment.  Particularly when no claim that the Defendants
    60        were there.  So, he does at the moment, or at that stage,