Day 263 - 14 Jun 96 - Page 07
1 event for the purposes of this argument and waiver of
2 privilege; that it was a simple matter of Mr. Nicholson
3 talking to Kings and talking to Bishops.
4
5 In fact, it is two courses of conduct. There is the
6 basically saying to Kings: "Collect information for us and
7 pass it on"; and there was the same course of conduct for
8 Bishops. There was a completely unified, simple, singular
9 purpose for that course of conduct for each of those
10 agencies, who then got on with it and sent single reports,
11 based upon notes, to the Plaintiffs via their solicitors.
12
13 So, the waiver in both cases of the notes and some reports
14 we have been served with -- let us say that the material
15 which was passed on to the Plaintiffs have effectively been
16 waived to such a substantial extent that the waiver must
17 apply to all the material of that nature collected and/or
18 passed on to the Plaintiffs by each agency.
19
20 So, we would say that that certainly the reports have
21 effectively been waived, the privilege has been waived, and
22 these reports are a unified, single response to the
23 instructions of Mr. Nicholson; and, therefore, all the
24 reports have no privilege any more; and, of course, because
25 of the huge volume of the notes that have been disclosed,
26 that that waiver would apply to all the notes of each of
27 the agents; and because it was a unified approach resulting
28 in reports, single reports, sent to the Plaintiffs, then
29 that would include not just the four agents whose notes
30 have been disclosed, but anything that appears in the
31 reports from Miss Tiller, Michelle Hooker or the seventh
32 agent, of course, the privilege would be waived on that as
33 well. You may feel their notes should be disclosed as
34 well, if the agencies have them or Plaintiffs have them,
35 because they are the original source material for the
36 reports. But, in any event -- yes, OK.
37
38 So, that is the privilege -- that is my view on privilege,
39 the waiver of privilege.
40
41 The question then comes to one of relevance. Mr. Rampton
42 said yesterday that the nature of the group and other
43 activities of the group or what other people did in the
44 group, are all irrelevant. The only matter of relevance is
45 my and Ms. Steel's involvement in anti-McDonald's
46 activities. Have I summarised that correctly?
47
48 MR. RAMPTON: No, that is incorrect.
49
50 MR. JUSTICE BELL: As I understand it, it is obviously any
51 involvement of yours in London Greenpeace activities. So,
52 where you are there or you are mentioned, that is it. But
53 it is also any activities of London Greenpeace in relation
54 to McDonald's, especially, you might argue -- but you do
55 not have to, because Mr. Rampton accepts it -- since you
56 have pleaded the question of consent and since publication
57 is said to be by London Greenpeace, you individually and as
58 members of London Greenpeace, in so far as you are putting
59 forward a consent to that publication, partly by virtue of
60 the activities of the agent, then anything which happened
