Day 258 - 07 Jun 96 - Page 57


     
     1   MR. MORRIS:  The conclusion is that the intention was to bring
     2        legal proceedings for defamation from the beginning,
     3        because that would be the only way you could possibly stop
     4        the distribution of the fact sheet.  There was no other
     5        way, was there?
     6        A.  As it turned out, there was not, and that is what we
     7        did.
     8
     9   Q.   There was never going to be any other way, was there?
    10        A.  There might have been if we thought you were
    11        approachable.
    12
    13   Q.   How do you find if some groups are unapproachable, by
    14        sending inquiry agents into them?  Is that how you do it?
    15        A.  No, we -- you had failed to answer our letters to you,
    16        and that was the only way to determine who was responsible.
    17
    18   Q.   When you talked to the solicitors and asked them how many
    19        letters they had actually sent to London Greenpeace about
    20        this fact sheet and what the replies were, what did they
    21        tell you?
    22        A.  I did not do it that way.
    23
    24   Q.   You did not ask the solicitors if they had actually written
    25        any letters?
    26        A.  No, I can remember suggesting to them that we should
    27        write, and I thought they had.
    28
    29   Q.   Yes.
    30        A.  That has been my opinion all the way through.
    31
    32   Q.   When you are charged with stopping the distribution of this
    33        fact sheet, presumably you asked the solicitors, "Can
    34        I have copies of the letters that you have written and the
    35        replies received"?
    36        A.  No, I did not.
    37
    38   Q.   You did not ask them?
    39        A.  No.
    40
    41   Q.   So, in fact, you were not interested in the solicitors
    42        writing to London Greenpeace.  It was an irrelevancy
    43        because the only action that you were interested in taking
    44        from the beginning was legal suppression of that fact
    45        sheet?
    46
    47   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What do you say to that suggestion?
    48        A.  I accept that litigation was always going to be a
    49        likely outcome, but I was hoping to avoid litigation
    50        because it is terribly expensive. 
    51 
    52   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.  From June onwards or July when Paul Preston 
    53        told you to stop this fact sheet being distributed, part of
    54        which you hired private investigators, you, being an
    55        experienced police officer maybe for a number of decades,
    56        will be well aware that anything that the group did
    57        involving the circulation of this fact sheet would be
    58        evidence?
    59        A.  Yes.
    60

Prev Next Index