Day 304 - 22 Nov 96 - Page 21


     
     1   MS. STEEL:   I think the point is just that the consequences are
     2        very serious for us in this case.
     3
     4   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Yes, I do not think that affects the
     5        standard of proof in any way whatsoever.  Anyway, you can
     6        come back to me on that if you want.
     7
     8   MR. MORRIS:   Can I just say something, just one further point?
     9        It is about the printing and production and publication of
    10        the leaflet before 1987, before the limitation period is
    11        brought into play, before which the Plaintiffs cannot go
    12        back.  I think that there was some evidence on this from
    13        Mr. Gravett especially.  In fact only, I think.  In case it
    14        does not come up in the evidence when we skip through it,
    15        just to say that it is obvious that the 'whensoever and
    16        wheresoever approach' is bizarre from the Plaintiffs,
    17        because the leaflet was printed before the limitation
    18        period.
    19
    20        I think Mr. Gravett also told of a mail-out that was done
    21        in 1987, and how can anybody say without, as Ms. Steel has
    22        explained, having a travel path and clear causality between
    23        us and the published document wherever and whenever it was,
    24        who can say that it may not have been a result, that it is
    25        likely to have been the result of, you know, substantial
    26        distribution at the time of the printing, which was before
    27        the limitation period?
    28
    29        So, I think it does emphasise the danger of the Plaintiffs'
    30        extension of the case in that regard and their obligation
    31        to have to show a travel path between us and the alleged
    32        distribution by others.  In fact, they have not even shown
    33        the distribution by others, as far as I can see, let alone
    34        the path between us and that distribution.
    35
    36   MS. STEEL:   Going on to the actual evidence of the nature of
    37        the group.
    38
    39   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Just let me finish my note.  (Pause).  Yes?
    40
    41   MS. STEEL:   Mr. Pocklington, who attended at least 27 meetings
    42        during the relevant period, stated that "the group had no
    43        formal structure".  That was day 261, page 42, line 6, and
    44        that "people had their pet subjects".  That was on day 261,
    45        page 42, line 29.  He confirmed that "London Greenpeace had
    46        no formal membership".  That was on day 261, page 59, line
    47        45.
    48
    49        He said it was certainly possible that people may have been
    50        against something and yet remained quiet.  That was day 
    51        262, page 7, line 51.  He said there was no expectation on 
    52        people to do things.  He was actually referring 
    53        specifically, in that context, to replying to letters, but
    54        it was a general comment about the nature of the group, and
    55        that "It was dependent on people's goodwill".  That was day
    56        262, page 18, line 38.
    57
    58        He said on day 262, page 21, line 29 that there was no-one
    59        in charge of meetings, and he also said that London
    60        Greenpeace was "a collection of individuals".  Day 262,

Prev Next Index