Day 263 - 14 Jun 96 - Page 17


     
     1        on myself and Mr. Morris; they are alleging that we are the
     2        organisers of the London Greenpeace fair, as an
     3        anti-McDonald's event; and, therefore, that would have been
     4        relevant evidence to show that Mr. Gravett was, in the
     5        main, doing the organising, and not us at all.
     6
     7        There are, of course, the blanked out parts of the notes of
     8        16th June 1990, where Mr. Bishop ran the stall at the
     9        George Roby which refers to leaflets on tables.  It does
    10        not specify McDonald's ones, but it refers to the group's
    11        leaflets being available on the tables.
    12
    13        There were the references that I referred to the other day,
    14        on 13th September 1990, which had been blanked out, with my
    15        details being given for organising the IMF fund.  So,
    16        clearly, that was a reference to me which had been blanked
    17        out.
    18
    19   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  But are these ones you are saying which were
    20        only blanked out and then have come in when more -----
    21
    22   MS. STEEL:   Yes.  They came in with the last set of documents.
    23
    24   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.  By the time I have given my ruling on
    25        this matter, it should be clear what should be disclosed,
    26        if it is there.
    27
    28   MS. STEEL:  Right.  I just have this concern, that Mr. Rampton
    29        is saying again that everything has been disclosed relevant
    30        to McDonald's or to us.  But that was what he said on a
    31        previous occasion, and that was not the case.
    32
    33   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I know.  I do not think I can say that the
    34        fact that it has taken two bites, as it were, to get it
    35        right, if that were so, necessarily means that I have good
    36        reason to suppose that there are still things there in the
    37        blanked out bits.  That is my reaction at the moment.
    38
    39   MS. STEEL:   Right.  Well, it might be relevant to a
    40        consideration about whether or not Mr. Rampton's decision
    41        on the test of relevance is the right decision -- which,
    42        obviously, you know, we disagree over what is relevant.
    43
    44        With reference to what was said yesterday by Mr. Rampton
    45        about events stopping after 1990, the service of the writs,
    46        Mr. Morris has touched on this, but I would like to refer
    47        you to actual -- I will read out parts of the pleadings,
    48        because Mr. Rampton did say yesterday that there were only
    49        two events after 1990 which were related to the main
    50        action. 
    51 
    52   MR. RAMPTON:  No, I did not say that.  I said which were related 
    53        to the defence of consent, because what matters is whether
    54        the Defendants, so far as consent is concerned -- because
    55        consent is alleged to be consent to publication of the
    56        leaflet complained of, and there are only two subsequent
    57        publications relied on.  As your Lordship observed earlier
    58        today, that has nothing to do with the case.
    59
    60   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  As I understood it, you said there were only

Prev Next Index