Day 164 - 26 Sep 95 - Page 44


     
     1        Caledonian Road and, therefore, it is all relevant.
     2
     3   MS. STEEL:  The point is that the Plaintiffs have said that the
     4        reasons they blanked out passages are that they do not --
     5        well, they say: "We have blanked out only those parts which
     6        have no relevance to any issue arising in this case."
     7        There are quite large parts of these they have not blanked
     8        out that are obviously not relevant to any issue in terms
     9        of what was said about McDonald's and things like that.
    10        There are clearly records of what they say happened at
    11        meetings of London Greenpeace.  The grounds for discovery
    12        which were referred to last term in Order 24, rule 2/5
    13        relating to any matter in question between them, under that
    14        paragraph it says: "They are not limited to documents which
    15        would be admissible in evidence, nor to those which would
    16        prove or disprove any matter in question.  Any document
    17        which it is reasonable to suppose contains information
    18        which may enable the party applying for discovery either to
    19        advance his own case or to damage that of his adversary if
    20        it is a document which may fairly lead him to a train of
    21        enquiry which may have either of these two consequences
    22        must be disclosed."
    23
    24   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  For that substitute for "documents" "parts of
    25        documents" because you are batting for the parts which have
    26        been blanked out.
    27
    28   MS. STEEL:   They clearly relate to things that they say
    29        occurred at the meetings or were said at the meetings.
    30        They may assist us to advance our case if, for example,
    31        there is something there we could plainly disprove even if
    32        it is not about McDonald's.  It may be we are able to use
    33        to cast doubt on other things that the private
    34        investigators have said.
    35
    36        There are already a number of parts of these notes that
    37        will be hotly disputed because we consider they are
    38        completely inaccurate in terms of he matters that were
    39        discussed.  It just stands to reason that since the entire
    40        notes are about what happened at the meetings, well, they
    41        say happened at the meetings, they may enable us to advance
    42        our case either through direct information included in the
    43        parts that have been blanked out or for the purposes of
    44        attacking the credibility of the witnesses.
    45
    46        They are also relevant on the grounds that the Plaintiffs
    47        have said that the campaign against McDonald's was a major
    48        part of the activity of London Greenpeace, and that by
    49        being involved in the group or attending its meetings we
    50        were therefore responsible for the anti-McDonald's 
    51        campaign.  Seeing what other matters were discussed at 
    52        meetings and how often the subject of McDonald's came up 
    53        may help the court to put into perspective just how much of
    54        London Greenpeace's time was actually taken up with the
    55        anti-McDonald's campaign, and what our involvement in that
    56        was, and what perhaps the main things that we were involved
    57        in with London Greenpeace were other than the
    58        anti-McDonald's activities.
    59
    60        If I can give an example of where it is totally clear that

Prev Next Index