Day 253 - 21 May 96 - Page 52
1 through their reports they got from the agencies, they are
2 relying on those as evidence.
3
4 The Plaintiffs are relying on the makeup of the group and
5 the dynamics within the group, or they are hoping to rely
6 on that, and the role of myself and Ms. Steel, and they
7 cannot rely on that unless they fulfil their obligation to
8 disclose all the information they have in their possession
9 or, indeed, if it is an interrogatory, in answer to an
10 interrogatory that might be relevant if it is an issue of
11 what the group were doing and what individuals in the group
12 were doing. So, the name of each inquiry agent and their
13 identity, whether it is a nick name or whether it is an
14 agent A, must be centrally relevant, and which meetings
15 they attended, both to their claim of our influence in the
16 group and what the group was doing in general, and to our
17 claim that the Plaintiffs were consenting by their
18 participation in group's activity any of their agents hired
19 by them who were participating in group activity i.e.
20 attending meetings, answering letters, any other events, or
21 indeed the mere presence of a substantial number at the
22 same time within the group. If it is a group of 8 people
23 of which 2 or 3 are known to be inquiry agents and, in
24 fact, another 2 were indeed inquiry agents, we have their a
25 virtual half and half situation. We would argue any
26 substantial involvement would be influencing a group's
27 activity.
28
29 So, it could not be a more fundamental issue in this part
30 of the case exactly how many inquiry agents, their
31 identities, and which meetings they attended. I would say
32 it is clearly a central issue, especially since the
33 Plaintiffs amended their case to broaden it out from
34 specific things that we were doing. They chose to broaden
35 out the case to make us responsible for what the group is
36 doing et cetera and then we re-amended to include consent,
37 so, since those amendments were made, this is the most
38 fundamental issue, the names and the dates they attended
39 the meetings of all the inquiry agents.
40
41 So, the Plaintiffs should be put to answering the
42 interrogatories. I think that is on oath, as far as I
43 believe, and the answers can be tested. I think it would
44 be helpful if a Plaintiffs' agent, like Mr. Nicholson, gave
45 the answers so that he can be questioned about it if
46 necessary, or indeed Mrs. Brinley-Codd because she was more
47 closely involved. She could swear an affidavit to the
48 effect and, if necessary, she could be questioned about
49 that.
50
51 I believe there was more than 7. I think that is why it
52 has been worded in that way because the evidence given by
53 Mr. Nicholson is there was about four still in the group up
54 to January from September 1990.
55
56 The reports from the agencies will contain all the dates
57 and, therefore, the dates of meetings and whatever will be
58 included in the reports which they have in their
59 possession. We do not know all the pseudonyms of all the
60 agents that have been currently identified. We are not
