Day 312 - 11 Dec 96 - Page 52


     
     1        London Greenpeace was a very informal organisation, that
     2        there was no one in charge; there was no obligation or
     3        expectation that any individual would take part in any
     4        activity or campaign; there was no requirement for any
     5        individual to obtain the permission of anyone else before
     6        pursuing any course of conduct which they felt was
     7        appropriate, and also that not everybody was interested in
     8        all the campaigns that were run under the banner of
     9        London Greenpeace.
    10
    11        7: There is further authority that an individual is not
    12        liable for publication simply by being a member or even an
    13        officer of an unincorporated association which published a
    14        libel.  In Ricci v. Chow -----
    15
    16   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I remember that.  You referred to it before.
    17
    18   MS. STEEL:   OK.
    19
    20   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Let me just read the quote again. (Pause).
    21        Yes.
    22
    23   MS. STEEL:   OK.
    24
    25   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I suggest you go on at 8.
    26
    27   MS. STEEL:   OK.
    28
    29        8: The courts' approach in these cases is to require
    30        evidence as to who actually published or authorised the
    31        defamatory material.  Mere membership of the organisation
    32        is not sufficient.  In so far as the Defendants are alleged
    33        to have caused, authorised or procured the distribution of
    34        the fact sheet, there must be evidence of some positive act
    35        by the Defendants.
    36
    37        9: Further, the positive act must be more than mere
    38        knowledge of the publication of the defamatory material.
    39        In Design Yearbook Limited v. Craig and Others [1967] 111
    40        Solicitors' Journal 719, it was held that the mere presence
    41        and non-dissent of the two defendant members who had been
    42        present at a meeting where it was recorded that at a
    43        previous meeting other co-defendants had decided to
    44        expressly instruct an employee to write a letter, did not
    45        represent a sufficiently positive act on their part to
    46        include them as having instructed the employee as their
    47        agent or in any capacity.
    48
    49        Just to further add to that point, that if it was the case
    50        that people could be held responsible for a publication
    51        purely by being a member, in inverted commas, of an
    52        organisation, why would -- why were only -- why would not
    53        the two defendant members, who were not present at the
    54        original meeting, automatically held to be liable, you
    55        know, in that case?
    56
    57        10: It cannot be inferred (as argued by the Plaintiffs)
    58        that the Defendants distributed or were responsible for
    59        distribution of the fact sheet before service of the writs
    60        because they attended pickets and distributed different

Prev Next Index