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

Prev Next Index