Day 306 - 26 Nov 96 - Page 39
1 MS. STEEL: I am finding it hard to know where to start with
2 Mr. Nicholson because I did not finish sorting out my
3 notes. If I just go through.
4
5 Mr. Nicholson said that, well, he seemed very confused as
6 to whether or not there had been a decision to bring
7 proceedings. On day 258, page 54, line 47 Mr. Nicholson
8 said: "I had already decided to bring proceedings, but
9 Terry Carroll did not know." That was at the time of the
10 16th October 1989 picket. You then questioned that answer
11 and he retreated from it, but he did go on to say that
12 proceedings were a distinct possibility. He also said on
13 page 57 of the same day, line 48: "I accept litigation was
14 always going to be a likely outcome."
15
16 In his second -- I do not know whether this is his second
17 or third statement -- the statement that was made shortly
18 before he went into the witness box. It is dated 9th May
19 1996. Actually, I have that wrong. It is the first
20 statement he made. Paragraph 5. He said:
21
22 "Having regard to the fact that I considered the leaflet to
23 be highly defamatory of the Plaintiffs, I considered that
24 it was in the Plaintiffs' interests to discover who was
25 responsible for distributing this leaflet so that
26 proceedings could be taken if necessary against those
27 responsible to prevent further repetition. It was and
28 remains my understanding that Greenpeace London is an
29 unincorporated association which had no legal status and,
30 therefore, cannot be sued in its own right. As a result,
31 it became necessary to identify members of the group", and
32 so on.
33
34 The point is that there is a clear indication from that
35 that the intention was to sue. Obviously, if that threat
36 had resulted in a climb down and, hence, no proceedings,
37 then that would have been preferable. But, otherwise,
38 where is there a need to identify individuals without first
39 having tried other methods? The point about this is that
40 when we questioned both Mr. Carroll and Mr. Nicholson about
41 why they had not taken photographs of people handing out
42 the fact sheet on the demonstration, they claimed that it
43 was because they had not decided to bring proceedings at
44 that stage.
45
46 Personally, I think it is a ridiculous answer because it is
47 clear that there was -- even if a definite decision had not
48 been made that they were going to go all the way with the
49 case, they were certainly seriously contemplating it and
50 making all sorts of preparations for it. So, it would have
51 been the most sensible thing in the world to go out and
52 take photographs of myself, for example, if (as Mr. Carroll
53 asserted) I was distributing leaflets throughout the
54 demonstration, and then, you know, they would have concrete
55 proof.
56
57 The reality is that I was not handing out fact sheets on
58 the demonstration and that is actually why they have failed
59 to obtain any photographs of me handing out fact sheets or
60 of me handing out any leaflets at all.
