Day 250 - 15 May 96 - Page 18
1 where that starts: "Difficulties arise, however, (a) in
2 determining the status of documents coming into existence
3 for more than one purpose and (b) deciding at what stage it
4 can fairly be said any such purpose is obtaining advice in
5 anticipated litigation as contrasted with obtaining
6 information as to an occurrence which may lead to
7 litigation".
8
9 I say that it was the second of those, even in respect of
10 the conversation to the solicitors, as opposed to
11 Mr. Nicholson. So that privilege would not apply, because
12 it was information about what was going on at the meeting
13 and what he was being told by the private investigator who
14 was obtaining information as to an occurrence which might
15 lead to litigation, i.e. whether or not the fact sheet was
16 being distributed; because if it was not being distributed
17 there would not be any litigation.
18
19 So, that is basically the points I want to make. The
20 questions that I wanted to ask Mr. Nicholson about it are
21 whether or not the meeting was because Mr. Clare thought he
22 had been rumbled by the group, whether or not the meeting
23 was about the fact that Mr. Clare was involved in
24 organising the London Greenpeace fayre, whether or not the
25 meeting -- or, not what the meeting was about, but whether
26 or not Mr. Clare told Mr. Nicholson that he had been
27 involved in organising the Greenpeace fayre, that he had
28 taken minutes of meetings of London Greenpeace, which is
29 something that is used against us in terms of proving that
30 we were heavily involved in the group, and whether or not
31 he had taken -- whether or not Mr. Clare told Mr. Nicholson
32 that he had stolen letters sent to the group, which are
33 obviously matters that have been canvassed previously with
34 other witnesses.
35
36 I think that is all I want to say. I think Mr. Morris
37 wants to say something.
38
39 MR. MORRIS: I think this whole area of the case is extremely
40 complicated and there are a lot of conflicting legal points
41 in terms of -- well, obviously, it is not just that the
42 Plaintiffs were considering litigation, their motives are
43 in question. The consent, as has now been claimed by us,
44 that they were consenting, and therefore their knowledge of
45 what was going on is of direct relevance and should
46 overweigh, overrule, simple standard privilege matters,
47 even if something did come within that category.
48
49 I think that we do not feel able to argue this point fully
50 now because we have not had legal advice. But we would
51 like to seek the protection of the court in our interests
52 in this matter and not call for a ruling which would
53 prejudice this part of the case -- our defence to this part
54 of the case. I do not think that the full case has been
55 put either by Mr. Rampton or by us on this subject.
56 Whether we are capable of getting legal advice at this time
57 is not a question, but we will certainly be seeking it.
58
59 I think that the communications to the Plaintiffs in the
60 process of their contemplated legal action are, in
