Day 164 - 26 Sep 95 - Page 44
1 Caledonian Road and, therefore, it is all relevant.
2
3 MS. STEEL: The point is that the Plaintiffs have said that the
4 reasons they blanked out passages are that they do not --
5 well, they say: "We have blanked out only those parts which
6 have no relevance to any issue arising in this case."
7 There are quite large parts of these they have not blanked
8 out that are obviously not relevant to any issue in terms
9 of what was said about McDonald's and things like that.
10 There are clearly records of what they say happened at
11 meetings of London Greenpeace. The grounds for discovery
12 which were referred to last term in Order 24, rule 2/5
13 relating to any matter in question between them, under that
14 paragraph it says: "They are not limited to documents which
15 would be admissible in evidence, nor to those which would
16 prove or disprove any matter in question. Any document
17 which it is reasonable to suppose contains information
18 which may enable the party applying for discovery either to
19 advance his own case or to damage that of his adversary if
20 it is a document which may fairly lead him to a train of
21 enquiry which may have either of these two consequences
22 must be disclosed."
23
24 MR. JUSTICE BELL: For that substitute for "documents" "parts of
25 documents" because you are batting for the parts which have
26 been blanked out.
27
28 MS. STEEL: They clearly relate to things that they say
29 occurred at the meetings or were said at the meetings.
30 They may assist us to advance our case if, for example,
31 there is something there we could plainly disprove even if
32 it is not about McDonald's. It may be we are able to use
33 to cast doubt on other things that the private
34 investigators have said.
35
36 There are already a number of parts of these notes that
37 will be hotly disputed because we consider they are
38 completely inaccurate in terms of he matters that were
39 discussed. It just stands to reason that since the entire
40 notes are about what happened at the meetings, well, they
41 say happened at the meetings, they may enable us to advance
42 our case either through direct information included in the
43 parts that have been blanked out or for the purposes of
44 attacking the credibility of the witnesses.
45
46 They are also relevant on the grounds that the Plaintiffs
47 have said that the campaign against McDonald's was a major
48 part of the activity of London Greenpeace, and that by
49 being involved in the group or attending its meetings we
50 were therefore responsible for the anti-McDonald's
51 campaign. Seeing what other matters were discussed at
52 meetings and how often the subject of McDonald's came up
53 may help the court to put into perspective just how much of
54 London Greenpeace's time was actually taken up with the
55 anti-McDonald's campaign, and what our involvement in that
56 was, and what perhaps the main things that we were involved
57 in with London Greenpeace were other than the
58 anti-McDonald's activities.
59
60 If I can give an example of where it is totally clear that
