Day 312 - 11 Dec 96 - Page 52
1 London Greenpeace was a very informal organisation, that
2 there was no one in charge; there was no obligation or
3 expectation that any individual would take part in any
4 activity or campaign; there was no requirement for any
5 individual to obtain the permission of anyone else before
6 pursuing any course of conduct which they felt was
7 appropriate, and also that not everybody was interested in
8 all the campaigns that were run under the banner of
9 London Greenpeace.
10
11 7: There is further authority that an individual is not
12 liable for publication simply by being a member or even an
13 officer of an unincorporated association which published a
14 libel. In Ricci v. Chow -----
15
16 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I remember that. You referred to it before.
17
18 MS. STEEL: OK.
19
20 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Let me just read the quote again. (Pause).
21 Yes.
22
23 MS. STEEL: OK.
24
25 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I suggest you go on at 8.
26
27 MS. STEEL: OK.
28
29 8: The courts' approach in these cases is to require
30 evidence as to who actually published or authorised the
31 defamatory material. Mere membership of the organisation
32 is not sufficient. In so far as the Defendants are alleged
33 to have caused, authorised or procured the distribution of
34 the fact sheet, there must be evidence of some positive act
35 by the Defendants.
36
37 9: Further, the positive act must be more than mere
38 knowledge of the publication of the defamatory material.
39 In Design Yearbook Limited v. Craig and Others [1967] 111
40 Solicitors' Journal 719, it was held that the mere presence
41 and non-dissent of the two defendant members who had been
42 present at a meeting where it was recorded that at a
43 previous meeting other co-defendants had decided to
44 expressly instruct an employee to write a letter, did not
45 represent a sufficiently positive act on their part to
46 include them as having instructed the employee as their
47 agent or in any capacity.
48
49 Just to further add to that point, that if it was the case
50 that people could be held responsible for a publication
51 purely by being a member, in inverted commas, of an
52 organisation, why would -- why were only -- why would not
53 the two defendant members, who were not present at the
54 original meeting, automatically held to be liable, you
55 know, in that case?
56
57 10: It cannot be inferred (as argued by the Plaintiffs)
58 that the Defendants distributed or were responsible for
59 distribution of the fact sheet before service of the writs
60 because they attended pickets and distributed different
