Day 149 - 06 Jul 95 - Page 51
1 best pay regard to the sort of things that we have already
2 disclosed which, evidently, they have not bothered to look
3 at which are in all the appendices to the files to the
4 effect, for example, that the Defendants are interviewed,
5 re-asserting the truth of the allegations complained of, or
6 expressing a determination to go on repeating them after
7 this case is over even if they should lose it.
8
9 Such press cuttings, if the Defendants have them (which
10 I am sure they do because I am sure they have a gold leafed
11 press cuttings book) are plainly disclosable and they
12 should realise it. Those are only examples.
13
14 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Just pause a moment.
15
16 MR. RAMPTON: I think from the expression on Ms. Steel's
17 face ------
18
19 MR. JUSTICE BELL: On what basis are they disclosable on? I
20 mean, they are not evidence in themselves.
21
22 MR. RAMPTON: They are prime facie relevant to the question,
23 whether they are evidence or not is another question,
24 raised by the Defence to counterclaim by the plea of
25 malice, by the claim for an injunction, that the Defendants
26 have persisted in making allegations and intending to
27 repeat allegations which they know to be false or which may
28 be shown to be false at the end of the case.
29
30 MR. JUSTICE BELL: But why they are relevant to that? They are
31 not evidence of any kind, are they?
32
33 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, it is not a question whether they are
34 evidence; it is a question whether they are relevant
35 documents.
36
37 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Spell it out to me. Why are they relevant
38 documents?
39
40 MR. RAMPTON: If there is a press cutting in which one or other
41 or both of the Defendants is reported as having said:
42 "Everything in the leaflets was true", why, then that is a
43 relevant document because it raises a train of enquiry
44 which may well damage the Defendants' case or advantage our
45 case. It is a classic Peruvian Guano document. It does
46 not make it admissible, because it raises the question:
47 Did they, in fact, say that? It looks as though they did.
48
49 We then explore the question. We ask the journalist: Did
50 the Defendants say that? If answer "yes", why, then we
51 have admissible evidence to prove our case. It is,
52 therefore, a relevant document for the purposes of
53 discovery. It is not an admissible document for the
54 purposes of evidence. The same, my Lord, goes for all
55 television interviews, videos tapes, and so on and so
56 forth.
57
58 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I think you had better spell it out. Do you
59 have the Peruvian Guano case?
60
