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

Prev Next Index