Day 306 - 26 Nov 96 - Page 39


     
     1   MS. STEEL:   I am finding it hard to know where to start with
     2        Mr. Nicholson because I did not finish sorting out my
     3        notes.  If I just go through.
     4
     5        Mr. Nicholson said that, well, he seemed very confused as
     6        to whether or not there had been a decision to bring
     7        proceedings.  On day 258, page 54, line 47 Mr. Nicholson
     8        said:  "I had already decided to bring proceedings, but
     9        Terry Carroll did not know."  That was at the time of the
    10        16th October 1989 picket.  You then questioned that answer
    11        and he retreated from it, but he did go on to say that
    12        proceedings were a distinct possibility.  He also said on
    13        page 57 of the same day, line 48:  "I accept litigation was
    14        always going to be a likely outcome."
    15
    16        In his second -- I do not know whether this is his second
    17        or third statement -- the statement that was made shortly
    18        before he went into the witness box.  It is dated 9th May
    19        1996.  Actually, I have that wrong.  It is the first
    20        statement he made.  Paragraph 5.  He said:
    21
    22        "Having regard to the fact that I considered the leaflet to
    23        be highly defamatory of the Plaintiffs, I considered that
    24        it was in the Plaintiffs' interests to discover who was
    25        responsible for distributing this leaflet so that
    26        proceedings could be taken if necessary against those
    27        responsible to prevent further repetition.  It was and
    28        remains my understanding that Greenpeace London is an
    29        unincorporated association which had no legal status and,
    30        therefore, cannot be sued in its own right.  As a result,
    31        it became necessary to identify members of the group", and
    32        so on.
    33
    34        The point is that there is a clear indication from that
    35        that the intention was to sue.  Obviously, if that threat
    36        had resulted in a climb down and, hence, no proceedings,
    37        then that would have been preferable.  But, otherwise,
    38        where is there a need to identify individuals without first
    39        having tried other methods?  The point about this is that
    40        when we questioned both Mr. Carroll and Mr. Nicholson about
    41        why they had not taken photographs of people handing out
    42        the fact sheet on the demonstration, they claimed that it
    43        was because they had not decided to bring proceedings at
    44        that stage.
    45
    46        Personally, I think it is a ridiculous answer because it is
    47        clear that there was -- even if a definite decision had not
    48        been made that they were going to go all the way with the
    49        case, they were certainly seriously contemplating it and
    50        making all sorts of preparations for it.  So, it would have 
    51        been the most sensible thing in the world to go out and 
    52        take photographs of myself, for example, if (as Mr. Carroll 
    53        asserted) I was distributing leaflets throughout the
    54        demonstration, and then, you know, they would have concrete
    55        proof.
    56
    57        The reality is that I was not handing out fact sheets on
    58        the demonstration and that is actually why they have failed
    59        to obtain any photographs of me handing out fact sheets or
    60        of me handing out any leaflets at all.

Prev Next Index