Day 253 - 21 May 96 - Page 52


     
     1        through their reports they got from the agencies, they are
     2        relying on those as evidence.
     3
     4        The Plaintiffs are relying on the makeup of the group and
     5        the dynamics within the group, or they are hoping to rely
     6        on that, and the role of myself and Ms. Steel, and they
     7        cannot rely on that unless they fulfil their obligation to
     8        disclose all the information they have in their possession
     9        or, indeed, if it is an interrogatory, in answer to an
    10        interrogatory that might be relevant if it is an issue of
    11        what the group were doing and what individuals in the group
    12        were doing.  So, the name of each inquiry agent and their
    13        identity, whether it is a nick name or whether it is an
    14        agent A, must be centrally relevant, and which meetings
    15        they attended, both to their claim of our influence in the
    16        group and what the group was doing in general, and to our
    17        claim that the Plaintiffs were consenting by their
    18        participation in group's activity any of their agents hired
    19        by them who were participating in group activity i.e.
    20        attending meetings, answering letters, any other events, or
    21        indeed the mere presence of a substantial number at the
    22        same time within the group.  If it is a group of 8 people
    23        of which 2 or 3 are known to be inquiry agents and, in
    24        fact, another 2 were indeed inquiry agents, we have their a
    25        virtual half and half situation.  We would argue any
    26        substantial involvement would be influencing a group's
    27        activity.
    28
    29        So, it could not be a more fundamental issue in this part
    30        of the case exactly how many inquiry agents, their
    31        identities, and which meetings they attended.  I would say
    32        it is clearly a central issue, especially since the
    33        Plaintiffs amended their case to broaden it out from
    34        specific things that we were doing.  They chose to broaden
    35        out the case to make us responsible for what the group is
    36        doing et cetera and then we re-amended to include consent,
    37        so, since those amendments were made, this is the most
    38        fundamental issue, the names and the dates they attended
    39        the meetings of all the inquiry agents.
    40
    41        So, the Plaintiffs should be put to answering the
    42        interrogatories.  I think that is on oath, as far as I
    43        believe, and the answers can be tested.  I think it would
    44        be helpful if a Plaintiffs' agent, like Mr. Nicholson, gave
    45        the answers so that he can be questioned about it if
    46        necessary, or indeed Mrs. Brinley-Codd because she was more
    47        closely involved.  She could swear an affidavit to the
    48        effect and, if necessary, she could be questioned about
    49        that.
    50 
    51        I believe there was more than 7.  I think that is why it 
    52        has been worded in that way because the evidence given by 
    53        Mr. Nicholson is there was about four still in the group up
    54        to January from September 1990.
    55
    56        The reports from the agencies will contain all the dates
    57        and, therefore, the dates of meetings and whatever will be
    58        included in the reports which they have in their
    59        possession.  We do not know all the pseudonyms of all the
    60        agents that have been currently identified.  We are not

Prev Next Index