Day 263 - 14 Jun 96 - Page 27


     
     1        But I do not want to say they are irrelevant if Ms. Steel's
     2        argument, or Mr. Morris's, is correct, that, for instance,
     3        perhaps less strongly, but by the same token, involvement
     4        in the activities, the mere fact that a writ has been
     5        issued does not mean to say that evidence of strong
     6        involvement in London Greenpeace activities or the handing
     7        out not of the leaflet complained of but some shorter
     8        anti-McDonald's leaflet, was not relevant.  It might add,
     9        if you wanted to argue, to the impression of team
    10        involvement in anti-McDonald's activities, which would
    11        strengthen your arm, even though it could not be relied on
    12        as publication itself, might it not?
    13
    14   MR. RAMPTON:  I suppose it might, yes.  I mean, I cannot say yes
    15        or no.
    16
    17   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  If that were right, I would not be able to
    18        rule it out as irrelevant, though I might go on to say that
    19        the notes and reports were privileged and there had been no
    20        waiver of them.
    21
    22   MR. RAMPTON:  It might be so.  I do not feel disposed to argue
    23        it at any length at all.  I am quite content to leave it to
    24        your Lordship.  There may well be material which is
    25        relevant to that consideration:  what was the group
    26        continuing to do vis-a-vis McDonald's?  But one has to
    27        remember what is actually pleaded, which is that the
    28        activities of the inquiry agents ultimately persuaded the
    29        group to publish the words complained of when they would
    30        not otherwise have done so.
    31
    32        As to that, if that is the relevant question (which
    33        I perceive it to be) I do not, myself, at the moment see
    34        how the inquiry agents' involvement in the group could have
    35        a bearing on that question.  However, there it is.  I have
    36        said that before, and I will leave it there, if I may.
    37
    38        Can I then turn very briefly -- and I really will not be
    39        very long -- to the question of waiver.  I have perceived
    40        -- and I am sure your Lordship will correct me if I am
    41        wrong, but I am trying to be as quick as I can -- that the
    42        point which was troubling your Lordship, or has troubled
    43        your Lordship, is the same one that has troubled me,
    44        namely, if you send two people to a meeting, they make
    45        privileged documents as a consequence of that, you then
    46        tender the evidence and the documents for one of those
    47        witnesses, is it not unfair that the other side should not
    48        have the full picture by having whatever material may have
    49        emanated from the second witness that you do not call?
    50 
    51   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes. 
    52 
    53   MR. RAMPTON:  I said yesterday that I perceive that to be a
    54        difficulty, as Hobhouse J. saw in the General Accident
    55        case, because of the wide ramifications in principle for
    56        the application of such a rule in a particular case.  As
    57        your Lordship said, though you may get off the hook if
    58        there had been, let us say, solicitors' notes, draft proofs
    59        of evidence and so on, your Lordship would making, at any
    60        rate, an inroad to some extent into the existing practice.

Prev Next Index