Day 302 - 18 Nov 96 - Page 02
1 Monday, 18th November 1996
2
3 MS. STEEL: Just before Mr. Morris continues with employment,
4 there were a couple of legal points I wanted to raise in
5 relation to publication. One was that I wanted to know
6 whether or not the Plaintiffs are still pursuing their
7 claim that we were the authors, or whatever, whether or not
8 it is now just back to publication -- distribution, sorry.
9
10 The other thing was that there was a reference, I think it
11 was in September, or it might have been the day we came
12 back in October, the Plaintiffs were saying something about
13 they were entitled to use other parts of the notes of the
14 spies than were raised either in examination-in-chief or in
15 cross-examination to assist them in proving their case. I
16 wanted to know whether or not they were intending to use
17 any other parts of the notes than were specifically
18 referred to while the witness was in the witness box giving
19 evidence. If they are intending to do so, I would like to
20 know which parts they are intending to use and, you know,
21 what is the purpose of it. Just so that we can address it
22 in our closing speeches.
23
24 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, I cannot respond to that last one yet in
25 detail and would not propose to do so, in any event, unless
26 your Lordship ordered me to, because I don't believe it is
27 right that I should dish out in advance parts of my closing
28 speech. However, the first two questions I can answer.
29
30 So far as Ms. Steel is concerned, I think I made it clear
31 at some stage, possibly during her cross-examination, that
32 we would accept that she did not have a hand in the
33 production of the original leaflet because the chronology
34 does not work.
35
36 So far as Mr. Morris is concerned, the position is entirely
37 different, because of course he did not give evidence which
38 means that his Haringey affidavit remains an admission to
39 the effect that he did.
40
41 So far as the second question is concerned -----
42
43 MR. MORRIS: If that is true, I am going to sue Lord Justice
44 Neill for saying I took part in the distribution of the
45 fact sheet, as he did in his ruling.
46
47 MR. RAMPTON: Lord Justice Neill did not write and swear the
48 Haringey affidavit.
49
50 MR. MORRIS: He did his judgment though.
51
52 MR. RAMPTON: That is number one. The second question is, yes,
53 it is quite possible that I shall want to refer to parts of
54 the agents' notes, which I cannot at the moment say which
55 they would be, which were not specifically referred to
56 either in evidence-in-chief or in cross-examination.
57
58 The reason for that, which is to be found in our written
59 legal submissions, is this: that the Defendants in
60 cross-examination of the agents ranged far and wide over
