Day 263 - 14 Jun 96 - Page 24
1 thing.
2
3 But, actually, I suppose this relates not just to the
4 blanked out parts of documents but to the relevance of
5 whole documents which have been omitted because Mr. Rampton
6 has argued that they are irrelevant. It must be open to us
7 to argue that our involvement in the group, or whatever
8 involvement there was in the group, was in running other
9 campaigns and not in running the McDonald's one; and,
10 therefore, the extent of discussion about other campaigns
11 at other meetings is relevant to see what the focus of the
12 group, in actual fact, was.
13
14 I mean, it may be the case that Mr. Gravett kept bringing
15 up about McDonald's and nobody else thought that that
16 should be a focus of the group, but it is still comes up as
17 a reference to McDonald's each time, whether or not it was
18 the focus of the whole group; and it is the focus of the
19 whole group which the Plaintiffs are trying to say makes us
20 responsible, because we are in the group.
21
22 At the bottom -- you have not got that part -- it is just a
23 reference to the Peruvian Guano case. Perhaps I do not
24 need to actually refer to a particular point. It does say:
25
26 "Provided the irrelevant part can be covered
27 without destroying the sense of the rest or
28 making it misleading....."
29
30 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I have that point in mind.
31
32 MS. STEEL: Right. Obviously, that relates to the overall
33 picture of the group. It may be misleading to any other
34 parts of the picture.
35
36 MR. MORRIS: If I vaguely remember the Peruvian Guano case, it
37 included something about if something leads to a train of
38 thought or inquiry.
39
40 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That is all -----
41
42 MS. STEEL: Just another point.
43
44 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It is all, in fact, excellent judgment of
45 Hoffman L.J., but Leggatt L.J. says it all in a few lines.
46
47 MS. STEEL: Maybe I should have done it from Leggatt L.J. But
48 it just seems like, you know, that the reason that they
49 have said this does not need to be unblanked is because of
50 the restrictions on use of similar fact evidence, and so
51 on. Obviously, that would not apply in this case, because
52 that is not what the blanked out parts are about.
53
54 Can I also say, in the judgment of Leggatt L.J., he does
55 say that that another of his reasons for not ordering
56 discovery or disclosure of the blanked out parts, is where
57 he says:
58
59 "In my judgment those arguments fall by their
60 own weight. Mr. Unwin disclaims any intention
