Day 259 - 10 Jun 96 - Page 69


     
     1        there was no reference to McDonald's; and, actually, some
     2        of the matters which were unblanked a couple of weeks ago
     3        actually mentioned McDonald's, and other parts actually
     4        mentioned our names.  So, I am a little bit concerned about
     5        that.
     6
     7   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.  Is there anything more you want to say,
     8        Mr. Rampton?
     9
    10   MR. RAMPTON:  I do.  Yes, I do.  My Lord, the first discovery is
    11        relevant.  I may be mistaken, and I may have misread what
    12        your Lordship said the other day, but I have taken the
    13        criterion to be, as I have said, meetings attended by one
    14        or both of the Defendants, one or other, and meetings at
    15        which some McDonald's matter was discussed.  The reason
    16        I say the latter is this -- and I have only made the
    17        discovery I have in relation to 1990, or most of it, first,
    18        because the degree of the Defendants' involvement in the
    19        group was relevant, and I have discovered all of that;
    20        second, because the Defendants amended their defence to
    21        allege, in effect, this, that the presence and activities
    22        of the inquiry agents fuelled or rekindled a campaign which
    23        was dying on its feet, and the campaign was the
    24        anti-McDonald's campaign.  What occurred at meetings when
    25        the Defendants were not there and McDonald's was not the
    26        subject, in any sense, of any part of the meeting cannot be
    27        relevant documents.  Never mind any questions of privilege;
    28        they are not relevant documents.
    29
    30   MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
    31
    32   MR. RAMPTON:  They do not bear on either of those questions.
    33
    34   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Yes.  I have to confess that I do not find
    35        these issues of relevance and discoverability always easy
    36        to decide, because in very many cases one can discern a
    37        point of possible relevance while thinking it is probably
    38        too remote from the main issues to help one.  In other
    39        cases, it is easier to see a point of possible relevance
    40        which might have some substance.
    41
    42        In relation to 17th May -- and I am restricting myself
    43        simply to Mr. Bishop's notes in relation to 17th May 1990
    44         -- he does in his statement say something about what his
    45        state of information was as to the topic which he was
    46        investigating, including in paragraph 4: "At the time of
    47        the first meeting, I thought the instructions must relate
    48        to animal rights issues."  Then, in paragraph 5: "Although
    49        I was never told the name of the client, I inferred over a
    50        period of time that it was McDonald's."  It does seem to me 
    51        that there is an issue surrounding generally the nature of 
    52        the instructions to the inquiry agents at the beginning and 
    53        that the Defendants should have the notes of 17th May, so
    54        they can see if there is any material in those notes which
    55        might enable them to query those matters.
    56
    57        So, although it is a marginal thing, my feeling is that the
    58        17th May notes are discoverable.
    59
    60   MR. RAMPTON:  With respect, I do not accept that.  I will

Prev Next Index