Day 263 - 14 Jun 96 - Page 22


     
     1        in this case, what went on at those meetings; and (c), for
     2        example, from what Mr. Pocklington said in the witness box
     3        yesterday, which was that all his notes would have been
     4        about what went on at the meetings, they were not going to
     5        be about anything else -- we can tell that they are
     6        relevant.
     7
     8        It cannot be the case that you have to actually be able to
     9        state specifically what is in the part that has been
    10        blanked out before you can apply for the blanked out part
    11        to be unblanked out, because that would be absurd, because,
    12        you know, nobody is ever going to be in a situation where
    13        they know what is there but they are applying for it to be
    14        unblanked out.  So it must be where there is reasonable or
    15        very reasonable grounds for believing that what is there is
    16        relevant; and we would say that those grounds are that the
    17        subject matter of the notes is the meetings and it is the
    18        events that went on at meetings which are in issue.
    19
    20   MR. MORRIS:  Can I say something on that?  To be fair to
    21        Mr. Rampton, I do not think it is so much as misleading the
    22        court, as that he has said what his test is of relevance,
    23        which is, his test of relevance is, it relates what me and
    24        Helen have said or if we are talked about or if McDonald's
    25        is talked about.  That is his test of relevance.  But
    26        because, in the pleadings, the nature of the group is an
    27        issue, the weight of anti-McDonald's activities is an
    28        issue, the weight within the group, for example, then the
    29        real test of relevance is: is the material in the notes
    30        about what was happening at the meeting attended by the
    31        agents.  So, for example, if suddenly in the notes the
    32        agent starts talking about something which is nothing to do
    33        with the London Greenpeace meetings, such as something
    34        that, you know, an internal matter of Kings agency, nothing
    35        to do with London Greenpeace -----
    36
    37   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You are back on the previous argument.
    38        Mr. Rampton's whole case about what he has blanked out
    39        relies upon his test of relevance being correct.
    40
    41   MR. MORRIS:  That is right.  But I think that if it looks like
    42        we are trying to say that Mr. Rampton is deceiving the
    43        court or something, we are not saying -----
    44
    45   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I had not assumed you were saying that.
    46
    47   MR. MORRIS:  We are not saying that.  We are just saying that
    48        his test is the wrong test.
    49
    50   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Yes. 
    51 
    52   MS. STEEL:   Going on ----- 
    53
    54   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  If you are going to be more than a couple of
    55        minutes, we will have the five-minute break.
    56
    57   MS. STEEL:  I probably will be a little bit more than five
    58        minutes.
    59
    60   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  We will have the five-minute break.

Prev Next Index