Day 312 - 11 Dec 96 - Page 50
1
2 Now, I do not think that that is right on the evidence that
3 has been heard because, as far as I remember,
4 Mr. Pocklington -- well, he was certainly aware that it was
5 a campaign -- it was about McDonald's, and also he agreed
6 that he had been given a description of myself and other
7 people to look out for, and that actually appears in his
8 notes on 2nd November, 1989, page 22, where he says that:
9 "Helen fits the description of Helen Steel described in
10 the letter of the client company in the letter accompanying
11 the photographs".
12
13 That was it, in terms of the publication section. If
14 I just now hand up legal submissions on publication which
15 I want to go through, although some of it has been dealt
16 with to an extent before. (Handed). I will just go
17 through it quickly.
18
19 Firstly, for the court to hold the Defendants liable in
20 defamation it must be satisfied that they published the
21 words complained of. It must be satisfied that either the
22 acts of the Defendants themselves amounted to publication,
23 or that the acts of others amounted to publication, and
24 that those others stand in such relation to the Defendants
25 that the Defendants can be held jointly liable for their
26 acts.
27
28 2: The factual connection between that publication and the
29 Defendants must be proved to exist. There needs to be
30 evidence of specific acts of publication by the Defendants,
31 or of specific acts by the Defendants which have caused the
32 publication, from which, on the "balance of probabilities"
33 and weighing up the evidence to the contrary, the court
34 could safely decide that the Defendants are responsible.
35 Just to say that the test is not "there is no evidence of
36 any specific acts, but can it be assumed, on the balance of
37 probabilities, that those acts took place?"
38
39 We argued on Day 304 that London Greenpeace has no legal
40 status whatsoever in the eyes of the law and, therefore,
41 the Plaintiffs must show specific acts by the Defendants
42 which would prove we were individually responsible.
43 However, if it is decided that London Greenpeace is an
44 unincorporated association -- I am not sure but I think
45 that that is the Plaintiffs' case; it was certainly what
46 Mr. Nicholson said -- then this makes little difference,
47 since the law relating to unincorporated associations
48 states that any action for libel has to be against the
49 individuals responsible for the publication. Then there
50 are relevant quotes from Halsbury, Duncan and Neill and
51 Gatley setting out the law on that matter.
52
53 They all make it clear that it has to be against either
54 those who published the material or those who authorised
55 it.
56
57 4: The Plaintiffs recognise that London Greenpeace cannot
58 be sued for libel as it is an unincorporated association
59 and that it is necessary for them to identify the persons
60 responsible for the publication of the alleged libel. It
