Day 304 - 22 Nov 96 - Page 19


     
     1        positions of authority within the bodies that were supposed
     2        to be responsible for publishing the defamatory articles
     3        would indicate that, you know, for an organisation which
     4        has no...  Well, it is even less applicable to try and pin
     5        responsibility on people within a group, or it is even less
     6        appropriate to try and pin responsibility on individuals in
     7        a group such as London Greenpeace without such -- you know,
     8        people who do not have any position of authority.
     9
    10        Anyway, the court's approach in those cases and in other
    11        cases is to require evidence as to who actually published
    12        or authorised, and mere membership of the others is not
    13        sufficient.  Mr. Rampton referred in his application for
    14        leave to amend the Statement of Claim to -- well, he was
    15        trying to draw an analogy with, if his chambers had printed
    16        a leaflet.  We would say that that analogy is wrong and, in
    17        a situation where his chambers produced a leaflet
    18        containing defamatory material, only those learned members
    19        that were actually involved or authorised the publication
    20        of the defamatory material would be liable.  A tenant that
    21        was not on the leaflet publishing committee and that had
    22        not given his specific authority that the material should
    23        be published by another on his behalf would not be liable.
    24
    25        All the evidence, in particular that given by the agents
    26        employed by McDonald's to infiltrate London Greenpeace
    27        meetings, and from the Defendants and our witnesses, from
    28        all of that, it is obvious that London Greenpeace lacked
    29        the essential organisation and infrastructure and mutual
    30        undertaking to be even remotely described as an
    31        unincorporated association.  In the absence of formal or
    32        informal mutual undertakings, given the actual nature of
    33        the collective, the Plaintiffs' contention that the
    34        Defendants caused, procured or authorised the publication
    35        of the fact sheet is hopeless, because such notions were
    36        entirely contrary to the way that individuals within the
    37        group functioned.  I.e., there was no hierarchy, and there
    38        was no authorisation or telling people what to do.
    39
    40        Moving on to specific evidence, it is clear from the
    41        evidence of all of the witnesses in the case that London
    42        Greenpeace was an informal group, that no one was in
    43        charge, that there was no obligation or expectation that
    44        any individual would take part in any activity or campaign,
    45        and that there was no requirement for any individual to
    46        obtain the permission of anyone else before pursuing any
    47        course of conduct which they felt was appropriate.
    48        Furthermore, not everybody was interested in all the
    49        campaigns that were run under the banner of London
    50        Greenpeace; not everybody who was involved with the group 
    51        or attended meetings. 
    52 
    53   MR. MORRIS:   Just before we go on to some of the evidence, if I
    54        could make a few extra points.
    55
    56   MR JUSTICE BELL:   Yes.
    57
    58   MR. MORRIS:   About publication going at the end of the case,
    59        and I remember that you made a comment fairly early on in
    60        the trial about the absurdity, if publication was not

Prev Next Index