Day 255 - 23 May 96 - Page 51


     
     1        A.  I would not know Eddie Bensilum's handwriting.
     2
     3   Q.   Does this seem to be a report of things that happened at
     4        that meeting -- well, casting your mind back?
     5        A.  I do not really know what it means half of it.  It says
     6        "not individuals leaflet".  Well, that would be the kind
     7        of thing that came from me at the first meeting I attended
     8        when I said, you know, it was an incorporated body,
     9        therefore we could not take London Greenpeace to court,
    10        that we had to identify individuals, so that first then
    11        looks as though it came from me.
    12
    13   MS. STEEL:  You were saying it was individuals?
    14        A.  I was saying we had to go for individuals, yes.  I do
    15        not know what that means, I am sorry.
    16
    17   MR. MORRIS:  OK.  It says at the top "RR to approve briefing
    18        document" in that second line.  Is that referring to
    19        Richard Rampton?
    20        A.  I do not know.  I am sorry, I just do not know what it
    21        means.
    22
    23   Q.   Did Richard Rampton QC ----
    24
    25   MR. RAMPTON:  That, I am afraid, is a question, which, even if
    26        the witness knows the answer to, he cannot answer.
    27
    28   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It does not matter one jot in relation to
    29        this case, unless you are going to add Mr. Rampton as a
    30        defendant to the counterclaim.
    31
    32   MR. MORRIS: I do not know if you can.
    33
    34   MR. JUSTICE BELL: I really do not advise you to do it at this
    35        stage in the trial but, otherwise, it really just does not
    36        matter.  The point is that there is no issue but that the
    37        Second Plaintiff is responsible for the documents which you
    38        set out in your counterclaim and the words you complain of
    39        in your counterclaim.
    40
    41   MR. MORRIS:  We would submit that the background briefing, that
    42        the Plaintiffs must have known that what we contend to be
    43        inaccuracies were inaccurate because of the ----
    44
    45   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Do contend it but not with Mr. Nicholson.
    46
    47   MR. MORRIS:  I think it helps to know that the Plaintiffs'
    48        solicitors were present and would know the full scale of
    49        documentary evidence and were checking briefings for
    50        example. 
    51 
    52   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  There is all argument really.  This is why 
    53        I asked you before the break to concentrate on what you
    54        have to ask Mr. Nicholson.  What I would like you to do is
    55        think about whether there is anything more you want to ask
    56        about the Scope meetings.  Quite frankly, I find it
    57        difficult to see how there can be anything you could
    58        usefully ask Mr. Nicholson about them.  When you have
    59        finished with the Scope meetings, then I think we ought to
    60        take stock as to whether there is going to be any more

Prev Next Index