Day 312 - 11 Dec 96 - Page 50


     
     1
     2        Now, I do not think that that is right on the evidence that
     3        has been heard because, as far as I remember,
     4        Mr. Pocklington -- well, he was certainly aware that it was
     5        a campaign -- it was about McDonald's, and also he agreed
     6        that he had been given a description of myself and other
     7        people to look out for, and that actually appears in his
     8        notes on 2nd November, 1989, page 22, where he says that:
     9        "Helen fits the description of Helen Steel described in
    10        the letter of the client company in the letter accompanying
    11        the photographs".
    12
    13        That was it, in terms of the publication section.  If
    14        I just now hand up legal submissions on publication which
    15        I want to go through, although some of it has been dealt
    16        with to an extent before.  (Handed).  I will just go
    17        through it quickly.
    18
    19        Firstly, for the court to hold the Defendants liable in
    20        defamation it must be satisfied that they published the
    21        words complained of.  It must be satisfied that either the
    22        acts of the Defendants themselves amounted to publication,
    23        or that the acts of others amounted to publication, and
    24        that those others stand in such relation to the Defendants
    25        that the Defendants can be held jointly liable for their
    26        acts.
    27
    28        2:  The factual connection between that publication and the
    29        Defendants must be proved to exist.  There needs to be
    30        evidence of specific acts of publication by the Defendants,
    31        or of specific acts by the Defendants which have caused the
    32        publication, from which, on the "balance of probabilities"
    33        and weighing up the evidence to the contrary, the court
    34        could safely decide that the Defendants are responsible.
    35        Just to say that the test is not "there is no evidence of
    36        any specific acts, but can it be assumed, on the balance of
    37        probabilities, that those acts took place?"
    38
    39        We argued on Day 304 that London Greenpeace has no legal
    40        status whatsoever in the eyes of the law and, therefore,
    41        the Plaintiffs must show specific acts by the Defendants
    42        which would prove we were individually responsible.
    43        However, if it is decided that London Greenpeace is an
    44        unincorporated association -- I am not sure but I think
    45        that that is the Plaintiffs' case; it was certainly what
    46        Mr. Nicholson said -- then this makes little difference,
    47        since the law relating to unincorporated associations
    48        states that any action for libel has to be against the
    49        individuals responsible for the publication.  Then there
    50        are relevant quotes from Halsbury, Duncan and Neill and
    51        Gatley setting out the law on that matter.
    52
    53        They all make it clear that it has to be against either
    54        those who published the material or those who authorised
    55        it.
    56
    57        4: The Plaintiffs recognise that London Greenpeace cannot
    58        be sued for libel as it is an unincorporated association
    59        and that it is necessary for them to identify the persons
    60        responsible for the publication of the alleged libel.  It

Prev Next Index