Day 312 - 11 Dec 96 - Page 14
1 case represents, it relates to the European laws, and also
2 about just the unprecedented nature of this case leading to
3 a situation where fundamentals needs to be looked at and
4 decisions made to prevent such a case occurring again.
5
6 So the fact that it may be normal under the law to claim
7 costs and damages when there is absolutely no possibility
8 of getting them and you know it, but we would say that is
9 part of the bizarre and oppressive nature of the current
10 practices in defamation, and it also relates to whether
11 they, the Company, should get costs or damages in any
12 event.
13
14 The ninth point to be borne in mind is the sheer length of
15 the trial, more than three times longer than the previous
16 longest UK libel case, and we have more to say about that
17 later. This is a sort of summation, an overview.
18
19 Point ten, the oppressive character of such a trial against
20 two members of the public, in particular two unrepresented
21 members of the public.
22
23 Point 11, the lack of a jury to adjudicate the trial and,
24 12, the chilling effect of libel judgments on freedom of
25 speech.
26
27 Taken in the round, those, quite many of them,
28 unprecedented -- obviously, some of them are typical, the
29 chilling effects on freedom of speech is typical in a libel
30 case, but bearing in mind all the other points, and seen
31 individually and together, it is clear this case is
32 completely off the scale in terms of precedence.
33
34 In the light of these and other fundamental matters
35 pertaining to this case, we submit that there are aspects
36 of the current libel and civil laws and procedures which
37 are clearly unable to protect the public interest, but we
38 believe that there is room, or should be room, in
39 defamation law, UK and European, as well as in the general
40 principles of natural justice to enable a judgment which
41 would protect the public interest.
42
43 So having, we feel, established the unusual aspects of this
44 case and, importantly, unusual aspects and significant
45 aspects, I want to go into a few details about abuse or
46 lack of safety in the current proceedings.
47
48 We further submit that for the reasons above and the
49 following additional reasons, for example, it is an abuse
50 and/or unsafe for the trial to proceed to judgment or for
51 judgment to be made in favour of the Plaintiffs. Firstly,
52 is extent of the Plaintiffs' infiltration of
53 London Greenpeace and the fact that at least two
54 infiltrators remained in the group after the issue of the
55 writs, including one monitoring the Defendants' response to
56 the writs, obtaining confidential information about the
57 Defendants' intentions, ways and means of fighting the
58 case, which, we would say, is an abuse of confidentiality.
59
60 Secondly, the lack of equality of arms which we mentioned
