Day 304 - 22 Nov 96 - Page 21
1 MS. STEEL: I think the point is just that the consequences are
2 very serious for us in this case.
3
4 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes, I do not think that affects the
5 standard of proof in any way whatsoever. Anyway, you can
6 come back to me on that if you want.
7
8 MR. MORRIS: Can I just say something, just one further point?
9 It is about the printing and production and publication of
10 the leaflet before 1987, before the limitation period is
11 brought into play, before which the Plaintiffs cannot go
12 back. I think that there was some evidence on this from
13 Mr. Gravett especially. In fact only, I think. In case it
14 does not come up in the evidence when we skip through it,
15 just to say that it is obvious that the 'whensoever and
16 wheresoever approach' is bizarre from the Plaintiffs,
17 because the leaflet was printed before the limitation
18 period.
19
20 I think Mr. Gravett also told of a mail-out that was done
21 in 1987, and how can anybody say without, as Ms. Steel has
22 explained, having a travel path and clear causality between
23 us and the published document wherever and whenever it was,
24 who can say that it may not have been a result, that it is
25 likely to have been the result of, you know, substantial
26 distribution at the time of the printing, which was before
27 the limitation period?
28
29 So, I think it does emphasise the danger of the Plaintiffs'
30 extension of the case in that regard and their obligation
31 to have to show a travel path between us and the alleged
32 distribution by others. In fact, they have not even shown
33 the distribution by others, as far as I can see, let alone
34 the path between us and that distribution.
35
36 MS. STEEL: Going on to the actual evidence of the nature of
37 the group.
38
39 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Just let me finish my note. (Pause). Yes?
40
41 MS. STEEL: Mr. Pocklington, who attended at least 27 meetings
42 during the relevant period, stated that "the group had no
43 formal structure". That was day 261, page 42, line 6, and
44 that "people had their pet subjects". That was on day 261,
45 page 42, line 29. He confirmed that "London Greenpeace had
46 no formal membership". That was on day 261, page 59, line
47 45.
48
49 He said it was certainly possible that people may have been
50 against something and yet remained quiet. That was day
51 262, page 7, line 51. He said there was no expectation on
52 people to do things. He was actually referring
53 specifically, in that context, to replying to letters, but
54 it was a general comment about the nature of the group, and
55 that "It was dependent on people's goodwill". That was day
56 262, page 18, line 38.
57
58 He said on day 262, page 21, line 29 that there was no-one
59 in charge of meetings, and he also said that London
60 Greenpeace was "a collection of individuals". Day 262,
