Day 263 - 14 Jun 96 - Page 07


     
     1        event for the purposes of this argument and waiver of
     2        privilege; that it was a simple matter of Mr. Nicholson
     3        talking to Kings and talking to Bishops.
     4
     5        In fact, it is two courses of conduct.  There is the
     6        basically saying to Kings: "Collect information for us and
     7        pass it on"; and there was the same course of conduct for
     8        Bishops.  There was a completely unified, simple, singular
     9        purpose for that course of conduct for each of those
    10        agencies, who then got on with it and sent single reports,
    11        based upon notes, to the Plaintiffs via their solicitors.
    12
    13        So, the waiver in both cases of the notes and some reports
    14        we have been served with -- let us say that the material
    15        which was passed on to the Plaintiffs have effectively been
    16        waived to such a substantial extent that the waiver must
    17        apply to all the material of that nature collected and/or
    18        passed on to the Plaintiffs by each agency.
    19
    20        So, we would say that that certainly the reports have
    21        effectively been waived, the privilege has been waived, and
    22        these reports are a unified, single response to the
    23        instructions of Mr. Nicholson; and, therefore, all the
    24        reports have no privilege any more; and, of course, because
    25        of the huge volume of the notes that have been disclosed,
    26        that that waiver would apply to all the notes of each of
    27        the agents; and because it was a unified approach resulting
    28        in reports, single reports, sent to the Plaintiffs, then
    29        that would include not just the four agents whose notes
    30        have been disclosed, but anything that appears in the
    31        reports from Miss Tiller, Michelle Hooker or the seventh
    32        agent, of course, the privilege would be waived on that as
    33        well.  You may feel their notes should be disclosed as
    34        well, if the agencies have them or Plaintiffs have them,
    35        because they are the original source material for the
    36        reports.  But, in any event -- yes, OK.
    37
    38        So, that is the privilege -- that is my view on privilege,
    39        the waiver of privilege.
    40
    41        The question then comes to one of relevance.  Mr. Rampton
    42        said yesterday that the nature of the group and other
    43        activities of the group or what other people did in the
    44        group, are all irrelevant.  The only matter of relevance is
    45        my and Ms. Steel's involvement in anti-McDonald's
    46        activities.  Have I summarised that correctly?
    47
    48   MR. RAMPTON:  No, that is incorrect.
    49
    50   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  As I understand it, it is obviously any 
    51        involvement of yours in London Greenpeace activities.  So, 
    52        where you are there or you are mentioned, that is it.  But 
    53        it is also any activities of London Greenpeace in relation
    54        to McDonald's, especially, you might argue -- but you do
    55        not have to, because Mr. Rampton accepts it -- since you
    56        have pleaded the question of consent and since publication
    57        is said to be by London Greenpeace, you individually and as
    58        members of London Greenpeace, in so far as you are putting
    59        forward a consent to that publication, partly by virtue of
    60        the activities of the agent, then anything which happened

Prev Next Index