Day 313 - 13 Dec 96 - Page 19

     
     1   MR. MORRIS:  Can I just add something there?  Just in that last
     2        document we looked at from Scope, at the bottom it did say
     3        part of their strategy was to position themselves as a
     4        victim.  So that was clearly something that was a conscious
     5        decision to give that impression.
     6
     7   MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
     8
     9   MS. STEEL:   Moving on to malice in relation to the
    10        counterclaim: Mr. Rampton says there is really no evidence
    11        of malice against the Plaintiffs fit to be considered and
    12        he says the solicitors' letter mistake is explained by Paul
    13        Preston in paragraph 17 of his second statement.  Now, if
    14        this was a mistake, and we do not consider that it was a
    15        mistake, I think that in relation to that you should note
    16        that on page 8 of the bundle of documents that we have been
    17        referring to the draft there is a copy of the draft
    18        internal briefing sheet, and paragraph 2 states that the
    19        campaign by London Greenpeace had been going since 1988.
    20        This was the draft, so there must have been a deliberate
         and conscious decision to change the wording to 1984,
    22        which, as we all know, is a false allegation.
    23
    24        Anyway, if this so-called solicitors' letter incident was a
    25        mistake, it was unnecessary.  It could easily have been
    26        checked.  The assertion in paragraph 17 of Mr. Preston's
    27        statement that "the 1984 London Greenpeace file was not
    28        available" does not stand up.  Firstly, because, as we have
    29        seen from the documents disclosed, this leaflet was planned
    30        over a period of at least a couple of months, so the file
    31        could easily have been obtained and checked.  Secondly,
    32        because if they knew that the letter was in the 1984 file,
    33        then why make allegation that there had been several
    34        subsequent letters -- which is their words -- over the
    35        period between 1984 and 1990?  Clearly, they knew that they
    36        did not have any evidence to substantiate that assertion
    37        that they were making in the leaflet that they put out
    38        criticising us.
    39
    40        Additionally on this point, if the Plaintiffs were remotely
         concerned with the truth, they could have ceased
    42        publication of this lie on any one of the dates below and
    43        instead each time they continued publishing the leaflets
    44        and press releases, despite the fact that they must have
    45        become increasingly aware that there was no hope that the
    46        allegation that they had made could be sustained.  For
    47        example, obviously, firstly, 25th May 1994, which was the
    48        date of service of the counterclaim.
    49
    50        That was actually the...  I do not know if you remember,
    51        but at the time we served the counterclaim we then amended
    52        it and then, I think, amended it again within the space of
    53        about a month, but this was the earliest one that I could
    54        find, the 25th of the 5th.  I think the one we are actually
    55        working from in this case is dated the early part of June,
    56        but just to bear in mind that, you know, the Plaintiffs had
    57        had the counterclaim before so they were aware of the fact
    58        that we were saying that that point was untrue.  Or they
    59        could have stopped distribution of this libelous press
    60        release and leaflets on 20th June 1994, which was the date