Day 312 - 11 Dec 96 - Page 51


     
     1        would make a mockery of the law if they are able to argue
     2        that mere involvement in London Greenpeace or attendance at
     3        its meetings is sufficient to prove responsibility.  What,
     4        then, would be the purpose of the law preventing
     5        unincorporated associations from being sued for libel and
     6        requiring proof of individual acts?  Effectively, if the
     7        Plaintiffs are allowed to succeed in this part of their
     8        claim, the Defendants are representing the association,
     9        i.e. London Greenpeace.
    10
    11        5: The Plaintiffs' assertion that the Defendants, since
    12        they were among only a dozen or so active members of
    13        London Greenpeace, are both liable for publication of the
    14        fact sheet does not stand up in law.  The case Mercantile
    15        Marine Service Association v. Toms [1915] 2 K.B. 243
    16        concerned a publication of a libel in a journal owned and
    17        published by the Imperial Merchant Service Guild.  The
    18        guild's affairs were governed by a management committee
    19        with officers, including chairman, vice-chairman and
    20        secretary.  It was these officers against whom proceedings
    21        were issued.  The Plaintiffs sought an order that the
    22        Defendants be appointed to represent all members of the
    23        guild, and on page 246 of the judgment concerning that
    24        application Lord Justice Swinfen Eady said:
    25
    26             "The action is for libel and the plaintiffs
    27             must prove who published the libel and,
    28             prima facie, only those who have published it
    29             either by themselves or by their servants or
    30             agents or have authorised its publication are
    31             liable.  The various members of this association
    32             are in a wholly different position.  If the
    33             members of the management committee were sued
    34             and if in fact they had authorised the
    35             publication of the libel, they could raise such
    36             defences as might be open to them.  The other
    37             members of the association, if sued, might say
    38             that, however defamatory the words complained of
    39             might be, they did not authorise their
    40             publication."
    41
    42        The important part of that is actually the bit that is not,
    43        strictly speaking, relevant to that particular part of the
    44        judgment, but that if the members of the management
    45        committee were sued and if, in fact, they had authorised
    46        the publication for libel, and the use of the word "if"
    47        indicates the court considered that just because they were
    48        members of the management committee did not mean that they
    49        were automatically responsible for the publication in the
    50        guild's journal.  There had to be proof of actual
    51        authorisation or personal participation in the publication.
    52
    53        This is the correct approach and should be applied to this
    54        trial.  Even if there are "only a dozen or so active
    55        members" of London Greenpeace, it does not follow that all
    56        of them authorised or were involved with distribution of
    57        the fact sheet, or even with the anti-McDonald's campaign.
    58
    59        6: This is particularly so when it is clear from the
    60        evidence of all the witnesses in the trial that

Prev Next Index