Day 149 - 06 Jul 95 - Page 51


     
     1        best pay regard to the sort of things that we have already
     2        disclosed which, evidently, they have not bothered to look
     3        at which are in all the appendices to the files to the
     4        effect, for example, that the Defendants are interviewed,
     5        re-asserting the truth of the allegations complained of, or
     6        expressing a determination to go on repeating them after
     7        this case is over even if they should lose it.
     8
     9        Such press cuttings, if the Defendants have them (which
    10        I am sure they do because I am sure they have a gold leafed
    11        press cuttings book) are plainly disclosable and they
    12        should realise it.  Those are only examples.
    13
    14   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Just pause a moment.
    15
    16   MR. RAMPTON:   I think from the expression on Ms. Steel's
    17        face  ------
    18
    19   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  On what basis are they disclosable on?  I
    20        mean, they are not evidence in themselves.
    21
    22   MR. RAMPTON:  They are prime facie relevant to the question,
    23        whether they are evidence or not is another question,
    24        raised by the Defence to counterclaim by the plea of
    25        malice, by the claim for an injunction, that the Defendants
    26        have persisted in making allegations and intending to
    27        repeat allegations which they know to be false or which may
    28        be shown to be false at the end of the case.
    29
    30   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  But why they are relevant to that?  They are
    31        not evidence of any kind, are they?
    32
    33   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, it is not a question whether they are
    34        evidence; it is a question whether they are relevant
    35        documents.
    36
    37   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Spell it out to me.  Why are they relevant
    38        documents?
    39
    40   MR. RAMPTON:  If there is a press cutting in which one or other
    41        or both of the Defendants is reported as having said:
    42         "Everything in the leaflets was true", why, then that is a
    43        relevant document because it raises a train of enquiry
    44        which may well damage the Defendants' case or advantage our
    45        case.  It is a classic Peruvian Guano document.  It does
    46        not make it admissible, because it raises the question:
    47        Did they, in fact, say that?  It looks as though they did.
    48
    49        We then explore the question.  We ask the journalist:  Did
    50        the Defendants say that?  If answer "yes", why, then we 
    51        have admissible evidence to prove our case.  It is, 
    52        therefore, a relevant document for the purposes of 
    53        discovery.  It is not an admissible document for the
    54        purposes of evidence.  The same, my Lord, goes for all
    55        television interviews, videos tapes, and so on and so
    56        forth.
    57
    58   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I think you had better spell it out.  Do you
    59        have the Peruvian Guano case?
    60

Prev Next Index