Day 259 - 10 Jun 96 - Page 69
1 there was no reference to McDonald's; and, actually, some
2 of the matters which were unblanked a couple of weeks ago
3 actually mentioned McDonald's, and other parts actually
4 mentioned our names. So, I am a little bit concerned about
5 that.
6
7 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. Is there anything more you want to say,
8 Mr. Rampton?
9
10 MR. RAMPTON: I do. Yes, I do. My Lord, the first discovery is
11 relevant. I may be mistaken, and I may have misread what
12 your Lordship said the other day, but I have taken the
13 criterion to be, as I have said, meetings attended by one
14 or both of the Defendants, one or other, and meetings at
15 which some McDonald's matter was discussed. The reason
16 I say the latter is this -- and I have only made the
17 discovery I have in relation to 1990, or most of it, first,
18 because the degree of the Defendants' involvement in the
19 group was relevant, and I have discovered all of that;
20 second, because the Defendants amended their defence to
21 allege, in effect, this, that the presence and activities
22 of the inquiry agents fuelled or rekindled a campaign which
23 was dying on its feet, and the campaign was the
24 anti-McDonald's campaign. What occurred at meetings when
25 the Defendants were not there and McDonald's was not the
26 subject, in any sense, of any part of the meeting cannot be
27 relevant documents. Never mind any questions of privilege;
28 they are not relevant documents.
29
30 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
31
32 MR. RAMPTON: They do not bear on either of those questions.
33
34 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. I have to confess that I do not find
35 these issues of relevance and discoverability always easy
36 to decide, because in very many cases one can discern a
37 point of possible relevance while thinking it is probably
38 too remote from the main issues to help one. In other
39 cases, it is easier to see a point of possible relevance
40 which might have some substance.
41
42 In relation to 17th May -- and I am restricting myself
43 simply to Mr. Bishop's notes in relation to 17th May 1990
44 -- he does in his statement say something about what his
45 state of information was as to the topic which he was
46 investigating, including in paragraph 4: "At the time of
47 the first meeting, I thought the instructions must relate
48 to animal rights issues." Then, in paragraph 5: "Although
49 I was never told the name of the client, I inferred over a
50 period of time that it was McDonald's." It does seem to me
51 that there is an issue surrounding generally the nature of
52 the instructions to the inquiry agents at the beginning and
53 that the Defendants should have the notes of 17th May, so
54 they can see if there is any material in those notes which
55 might enable them to query those matters.
56
57 So, although it is a marginal thing, my feeling is that the
58 17th May notes are discoverable.
59
60 MR. RAMPTON: With respect, I do not accept that. I will
