Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day030.01
Last-Modified: 2000/07/25

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE            1996 I. No. 113
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice
                                           Strand, London
                                      Monday, 6th March 2000

                                Before:
                            MR JUSTICE GRAY

        B E T W E E N:
DAVID JOHN CAWDELL IRVING
                                                Claimant
-and-

(1) PENGUIN BOOKS LIMITED
(2) DEBORAH E. LIPSTADT
                                                Defendants
   The Claimant appeared in person
   MR RICHARD RAMPTON Q.C. (instructed by Messrs Davenport Lyons
and Mishcon de Reya) appeared on behalf of the First and
        Second Defendants
   MISS HEATHER ROGERS (instructed by Davenport Lyons) appeared on
behalf of the First Defendant Penguin Books Limited

MR ANTHONY JULIUS (of Mishcon de Reya) appeared on behalf of
        the Second Defendant Deborah Lipstadt

        (Transcribed from the stenographic notes of Harry Counsell
& Company, Clifford's Inn, Fetter Lane, London EC4
                       Telephone: 020-7242-9346)
(This transcript is not to be reproduced without the
            written permission of Harry Counsell & Company)

PROCEEDINGS - DAY THIRTY



.          P-1

        (Day 30, 10.30 a.m.)

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, Mr Irving?
   MR IRVING:  May it please the court, may I just first begin, as
        this is our last informal session, so to speak, before we
        come to more formal matters, just by expressing words of
        my appreciation for the work put in by the defending firms
        of solicitors.  They have had an extra burden put upon
        them by the fact that I am a litigant in person and I
        deeply appreciate their efficiency in this matter.
        I appreciate their help in this matter.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That is very fair of you to say that.
   MR IRVING:  It is proper I should say that as a matter of
        record.  My Lord, I have two or three matters to deal with
        today.  If I can propose the agenda for this morning?  It
        would be to deal with these two or three matters of mine
        first which include my points on the video films, then
        subsequently to take up the matter of your Lordship's list
        of issues, unless your Lordship wishes to put it the other
        way round?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That sounds to me perfectly sensible.
        Mr Rampton, you do not object to that, do you?
   MR RAMPTON:  What I would suggest we do is Mr Irving makes his
        points -- I had thought there was only the one individual
        video in question actually which was the Halle video - - if
        he makes on that, then Mr Julius, if your Lordship will,

.          P-2

        will reply on that because he knows the story, I do not,
        and if it goes through me, I am likely to get it wrong.
        Then, when we have done that and your Lordship has made
        whatever ruling or decision is necessary, then we should
        go on to the list.  I also want to say something about the
        closing speeches which, looking at the transcript of
        Thursday evening, it ended up in a bit of a muddle.  I do
        not really know what it is that I am supposed to do, but
        I would like to go back to that and revisit that, if I may?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Sure.  So, Mr Irving, let us start off with
        the ----
   MR IRVING:  My Lord, I have put a small bundle, or two or three
        small bundles, in front of your Lordship.  The one marked
        "A" in the top right-hand corner, as your Lordship will
        remember, there was a question as to whether the diary
        entry July 24th on a certain day was complete, and I have
        now disclosed voluntarily the entire diary entries for
        that week, effectively, which shows there was one sentence
        redacted.  There was a suspicion, my Lord, that there
        might have been some reference to the National Alliance in
        that opening sentence and ----
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  And there is not.
   MR IRVING:  There is not.  If the Defendants wish to send
        somebody to inspect the actual computer disk on which that
        entry is recorded, just to make sure it has not been

.          P-3

        amended in some way, then I would be quite happy to -- --
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I doubt whether they will want to.
   MR IRVING: --- to establish.  My Lord, little bundle B ----
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I am sorry, I am going to just put these
        documents where they belong.  I will not do it now but can
        somebody give me the ----
   MR RAMPTON:  RWE 1.  I cannot tell you -- tab 2.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Good.
   MR IRVING:  Little bundle B.  Your Lordship wished to have a
        note on the BBC gas chamber propaganda, if I can put it
        like that.  I have put together a two-page summary of a
        broadcast made by one broadcaster, Thomas Mann, the famous
        German novelist, in November, January and June 1942 which
        I think are the material dates, before the Rigner letter
        from Geneva, and attached to that are photocopies from the
        published version of his broadcasts, and the footnotes are
        the references from his diaries which fix the actual dates
        when the broadcasts were made.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Did he talk about----
   MR IRVING:  He did talk about gas chambers.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  --- gas chambers?
   MR IRVING:  My Lord, he talked about mass gassings at line 2 of
        the second page.  He talked in the second item, which is
        dated January 1942, of 400 Young Dutch Jews being sent as
        test objects for poisons gas.  He corrected that on June
        26th 1942 to say it was 800 who had been to Mauthausen

.          P-4

        where they were gassed.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.  Again where is that?
   MR IRVING:  My Lord, you have already had something like that
        similar, but not in that neater form.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Unfortunately, I have not, I think, now got
        all the...
   MR IRVING:  I will certainly refer to that in my closing
        address with all that detail, and so you might wish just
        to throw those away.
   MS ROGERS:  For ease, if you put in J2, tab 19, which is the
        next empty tab, we will provide an index to Mr Irving of
        everything that is in J2 and ----
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  You have done that almost up-to-date already, I think.
   MR IRVING:  My Lord, the next matter is the Halle video or
        videos.  If your Lordship will turn to bundle C, which is
        somewhat thicker, but I am not going to take you through
        all the documents on that, it was a bundle put together
        for the actual action in a lower court before Master
        Trench.  It is bundle C.  I have inserted just behind the
        index a photograph of the three original videos which fell
        into my hands.  They look rather tatty and I attach
        importance to that.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  When you say they fell into your hands, you
        got these from this week, did you?
   MR IRVING:  Let me first of all set out ----

.          P-5

   MR RAMPTON:  I thought bundle C was the witness bundle, but it
        is obviously something different.
   MR IRVING:  There should be three or four bundle Cs over there.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It has "Halle" in the top right-hand corner
        under the "C".
   MR IRVING:  "Halle" in the top right-hand corner and also - ---
   MR RAMPTON:  I do not think I have got that.
   MR IRVING:  I am sorry, could his Lordship possibly have a
        slightly better picture?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Thank you very much.
   MR IRVING:  My Lord, first of all, let me say that this is a
        matter which goes to the issue of evidence, the
        admissibility.  It also goes to the question of the
        conduct of the case which has a bearing on damages and
        costs.  So, I would ask your Lordship to bear those three
        matters in mind.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Well, I think I only really need to trouble
        you about admissibility.
   MR IRVING:  At this stage.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  If you want to say anything about damages,
        then do that in your final speech.  I understand the point
        you are making, but we are only really concerned with admissibility now.
   MR IRVING:  Well, in that case that makes this session this
        morning much briefer because I was about to take your
        Lordship through the rather sorry history of how this

.          P-6



        evidence was withheld from me.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I do not think now is the right time to do
        that.  What you are, presumably, going to say (and I
        express no view about it) is that the way in which they
        have dealt with this material is an illustration of the
        high handed way the Defendants have behaved and the
        offensive way in which they have conducted their case
        generally, is that the kind of point you are making?
   MR IRVING:  I would have used different adjectives, but that is
        certainly my case, my Lord, that they have used muscle,
        they have used wealth, they have used power, they have
        used experience -- they are one of the most experienced
        firms of solicitors in this country, and I make no
        criticism of that fact -- against myself as a litigant to
        try to conceal evidence from me, although the Second
        Defendant had sworn an affidavit, they then referred me to
        the affidavit to prevent me from making further enquiries
        saying, "You can go behind that when the time comes to
        cross-examine", which, of course, has been denied me, that
        opportunity; and they have had these three versions of the
        Halle video in their hands, the Thames Television version
        as broadcast, the Dispatches version and then also the
        heavily edited version and then there is the raw version
        which I have looked at two or three times, particularly
        relating to the episode where I am standing making the
        speech in Halle.  That too has been cut by the cameraman.

.          P-7

                  If they are proposing to attach any weight to
        this, then I would wish to make objections which your
        Lordship can well apprehend what those objections would be
        as to the admissibility.  It is edited material, as a
        document, a video is a document within the terms of the
        rules of evidence and the Rules of the Supreme Court.
        That is why I made the original application under rule 24
        I think 13 or 16 to have that material struck out because
        of the withholding of the evidence from me.  We had quite
        an intensive session and Master Trench, because the
        solicitors in that case broke an undertaking to bring the
        originals to the High Court for the hearing before Master
        Trench, I was unable to establish that it was originals
        and, therefore, not privileged material.  But that is, of
        course, the other matter.  That goes to the conduct of the case.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.  Just concentrate on admissibility.  As
        I understand it, you do not dispute that what was shown in
        court the other day is from a tape, but you say that it
        has been so heavily edited as to give a false impression
        of what actually happened?
   MR IRVING:  It does not give ----
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Is that the way you put it?

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor