Day 305 - 25 Nov 96 - Page 26


     
     1             Secretary General the plaintiff issued a writ
     2             against the defendant on 11 February 1986,
     3             claiming damages for libel on the basis that the
     4             defendant had published or caused to be
     5             published the article to which I have referred.
     6             Two days later an application was issued on
     7             behalf of the plaintiff seeking leave to
     8             administer five interrogatories to the
     9             defendant.  On 7 March Master Warren gave leave
    10             to administer all five interrogatories.  The
    11             defendant appealed, and on 16 October 1986
    12             Sir Neil Lawson, sitting as a judge of the High
    13             Court in chambers, allowed the appeal in part.
    14
    15                  "He ordered that the endorsement on the
    16             writ claiming damages for libel be struck out on
    17             the basis that there was no evidence that the
    18             defendant was the publisher of the journal or in
    19             any way responsible for its publication but he
    20             gave leave to substitute a claim for discovery."
    21
    22        So, there, the claim against this defendant is being struck
    23        out on the basis that there is no evidence of him being
    24        connected to publishing the article, despite the fact that
    25        he has got an unofficial title of Secretary General.
    26
    27        So, I really do not see how the Plaintiffs can argue that
    28        either by being a signatory to the account or just by
    29        generally being involved with London Greenpeace to any
    30        extent, we are therefore responsible for the publication of
    31        the fact sheet.  There must be evidence of some specific
    32        act of assent or distribution directly related to us.
    33
    34        In fact, just on page 540, which is still the judgment of
    35        Parker LJ, he says -- this is the virtually the last thing
    36        he says, and it is opposite C:
    37
    38             "The fact that the defendant is a member of the
    39             same organisation as those who published or
    40             authorised the printing of the libel can make no
    41             difference, for the tort is not committed by the
    42             organisation.  It is committed by individuals."
    43
    44        I do not know if you have a copy of that case?  I could
    45        lend it to you.
    46
    47   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I have the reference, so I can look it up.
    48        I have a copy in my room.
    49
    50   MS. STEEL:   Right.  I think just a final point on this is that, 
    51        in any event, the reality is that the group did not have 
    52        leaders and that people took responsibility for their own 
    53        actions.  I think the fact that there was not anybody in
    54        charge was really shown to be the case by the evidence of
    55        Mr. Bishop, who, on day 260, page 29, line 15, when we
    56        questioned him about his statement that he had been looking
    57        to see who was in charge of the group, he said that it was
    58        not immediately apparent who was in charge of meetings,
    59        and, if there had been someone in charge of meetings, it
    60        would have been immediately apparent.

Prev Next Index