Day 313 - 13 Dec 96 - Page 41


     
     1        propositions of law just to re-argue what inferences
     2        I should draw from the evidence or what conclusions I am
     3        not entitled to draw from the evidence.
     4
     5   MS. STEEL:   This is not about the facts, though, this is about
     6        whether or not you are entitled to take such things into
     7        consideration.
     8
     9   MR. JUSTICE BELL: You must leave that to me.  I do not see that
    10        as a proposition of law.
    11
    12   MS. STEEL:   Well, a further point is just simply that you must,
    13        as a point of law, ignore all comment in them because if
    14        they were making that comment from the witness it would be
    15        deemed inadmissible and there is no reason why it should be
    16        allowed just because it is from a report.  So, no
    17        impressions or 'I think such and such' except where there
    18        is clear evidence about, you know, what it is based on.
    19        Can I just say, the other day there was something said
    20        about it was happening now all over the country that
    21        policemen were looking up their notebooks to refresh their
    22        memories, and if I make the point that police officers
    23        would not be allowed to blank out parts of their notebooks
    24        nor to put in an opinion.
    25
    26   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You know what I was referring to then.  It
    27        was that one of the authorities we have was explaining what
    28        "refresh your memory" means.  What it does not have to
    29        mean is that when you look at the note you say, 'Ha-ha, now
    30        I remember'.  What you are entitled to do is to look at the
    31        note which you say you made at the time and which was
    32        accurate, you say, otherwise you would not have made it an
    33        then relate that as what happened.  That was what my
    34        reference to police officers looking in their notes books
    35        was directed at.
    36
    37   MS. STEEL:   Right.  They also would not be allowed to put in
    38        what other people told them, only put in fact of what they
    39        heard themselves stated by the individuals concerned.
    40
    41        Just another point which is very short, which I think we
    42        have made before, is that, as we understand it, on the law
    43        no finding can be made in these proceedings with respect to
    44        any other leaflets since they are not part of Statement of
    45        Claim.
    46
    47        This is a point which I, sort of, was making the other day
    48        in relation to the European Court law, and where I did say
    49        that requiring proof of every single fact, particularly
    50        given in the circumstances of this case, is contrary to
    51        article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
    52        Just to say that in our view in a defamation action the
    53        appropriate test to be applied by the courts is whether the
    54        defendant held a reasonable belief in the truth and
    55        accuracy of the alleged defamatory statement, and fair
    56        comment scope should be wideranging, i.e. not limited to
    57        views which, for example, the Plaintiffs consider to be
    58        appropriate, or which you personally consider to be
    59        appropriate.  The scope for fair comment should take into
    60        account that there are wideranging political beliefs, and

Prev Next Index