Day 263 - 14 Jun 96 - Page 11
1 MR. JUSTICE BELL: You have put your point, and I will have to
2 consider it.
3
4 MR. MORRIS: The last point I was going to make is about the
5 post-1990 -- sorry -----
6
7 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Post-September.
8
9 MR. MORRIS: Post-September 1990. The first thing is, any
10 agents -- and we have heard from Mr. Nicholson that there
11 were something like four -- who remained in the group after
12 September 1990, whether it was for one week or for six
13 months, it would be relevant to our consent pleadings of
14 the Plaintiffs' involvement, because if they continued to
15 distribute London Greenpeace fact sheets, or whatever,
16 whatever their case might be, we have the right to make our
17 case, and our case is that they have consented through
18 their involvement. So, that is the first thing that is
19 relevant to our case on consent.
20
21 Secondly, it is relevant to the Plaintiffs' case against us
22 on malice what the agents observed after September 1990.
23 Obviously, they would have been absolutely spellbound by
24 any discussions of what happened after the writs were
25 served amongst the Defendants or in the group in general;
26 and that will be relevant to the Plaintiffs' allegation of
27 malice against us, what was said.
28
29 The third point is, relevant to the Plaintiffs' application
30 for an injunction, what happened after September 1990; and
31 it is relevant to what I think might be called a pattern of
32 behaviour. If someone was exhibiting certain activities or
33 beliefs after September 1990, that would throw light on
34 what they were doing before September 1990 -- a continuum.
35 That is the continuum argument, I think. It cannot be
36 suddenly irrelevant what happens after September 1990, if
37 it was relevant before, what that individual did, or,
38 indeed, any other agents.
39
40 So, the last point of relevance of post-1990 is that it
41 could be argued it is relevant to the counterclaim where
42 the Plaintiffs have attacked the Defendants for lying in
43 the London Greenpeace fact sheet; and, therefore, our views
44 regarding the bringing of the case -- the Plaintiffs,
45 actually, have gone further than that. I think they have
46 relied on the actual proceedings in their defence of the
47 counterclaim, that somehow the service of the writ and the
48 particulars, witness statements -- the witness statements
49 would follow later -- but the point is that they have
50 relied on the institution of proceedings as evidence that
51 we should have known that if, indeed, we did distribute
52 London Greenpeace fact sheets, then we should have known it
53 was all untrue, because we got a writ. It might sound like
54 a completely ludicrous pleading, but that is their case.
55 Obviously, in every libel case people would be able to
56 plead malice just because they have sent a writ to
57 somebody, or whatever. Anyway, that is on the lies
58 argument. So, I think post-September 1990 is relevant.
59
60 I will just say one more thing, that it should be noted
