Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day031.04
Last-Modified: 2000/07/25
MR RAMPTON: I cannot remember which section it is. In fact,
. 25
section is, I think, about eleven pages long.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: I do not seem to have got it. I may well
have put it in the wrong place.
MR RAMPTON: It is eleven pages of single spaced typescript.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, I do not have it.
MR RAMPTON: Here is another copy.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: It was not handed in this morning.
MR RAMPTON: Again, it follows the scheme of the relevant
paragraph in the written skeleton.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: I cannot really claim to make sense of that,
just seeing it now.
MR RAMPTON: No, of course not. It is a late section in the
submission, and it needs to be read in the light of
everything that has gone before, particularly section of
paragraph , the historiography section, but also, of
course, the Auschwitz section.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes.
MR IRVING: One other point I am unclear about is precisely
which matters the Defendants are now claiming protection
of section over.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: As to that, again, if we are not having oral
argument, it is only right that you should know how I was
intending to approach it. This would normally be
ventilated in the course of submissions. Effectively, it
is really for me to decide and evaluate the seriousness of
the various imputations against you.
. 26
MR IRVING: Whether section applies?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. I think you understand the way section
works, and to the extent that there may be unproven some
relatively minor imputation against you, then it may be
that I would invoke section and say, the fact that that
particular imputation has not been proved by the
Defendants is not going to mean that their defence of
justification as a whole fails.
MR IRVING: But some matters appear to have been left in limbo
like, for example, the question of whether there was a
breach of agreement over the Goebbels diaries in Moscow.
MR RAMPTON: No, it is not in limbo at all. It is treated
fully in the Moscow section. Our conclusion about section
is that it is no application in this case because
everything that Professor Lipstadt wrote is true in substance.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Quite, but one has to cater for the
possibility. I think we either do have closing submissions
or we do not. I think just having odd thoughts being
canvassed is just not the way to go about it. I am making
every allowance, Mr Irving, for the fact that you are a
litigant in person.
MR IRVING: Totally ignorant of the law, yes.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: You have the opportunity to address me on
whatever you wish to address me on. I do not know whether
you have had the chance to absorb what the Defendants have
. 27
said in their closing submissions. If you want to do it,
I think now is the opportunity to do it.
MR IRVING: Mr Rampton says that he is not pleading section
on any of the issues in their pleadings of course, in
their defence, that is.
MR RAMPTON: I do not say that. What I say is that we do not
believe that it has any application, because everything we
said is substantially true. That does not mean that, if
your Lordship does not agree with that, section may not
need to be applied.
MR IRVING: They withdrew the Moscow witnesses and their expert
reports and the documents that went with them. They have
adduced no evidence whatsoever in justification of the
allegation that I breached the agreement in the Moscow
diaries therefore, and I cannot see therefore ----
MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am in the difficulty that I have to admit
that I have not got as far in the Defendants' submissions
as the Moscow section, so I do not know, because I had
expected that I was going to be taken through the
submissions this morning or today.
MR IRVING: My Lord, I have dealt ----
MR JUSTICE GRAY: So I cannot help you on that.
MR IRVING: I dealt, probably quite improperly then, with the
matter in my closing submissions where I dealt with the
allegations about the Hamas and Hisbollah and Farakan and
Pramyat in three or four pages in fact of my closing
. 28
statement and strongly suggested that section should not apply.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Rampton has not really addressed that
point, but I am well aware there is a great deal in
Professor Lipstadt's references to you in her book
which have not been sought to be justified at all.
MR IRVING: Yes.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: So it seems to me that section has got to
play some part, whether it avails the defendants is
something that I will have decide.
MR IRVING: The allegation that I sit in my office beneath a
portrait of Adolf Hitler and that kind of thing, for which
again they have pleaded no justification, which will
certainly go to my seriousness as a historian. I was
hoping that we were going to obtain some definitive list
from the Defendants of what they do intend to put in that
particular sand bucket.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: They are entitled to say, we say everything
is true, full stop. As I understand Mr Rampton, that is
the way it is put in the written submissions, but I think
I have to approach it on the basis that section is
pleaded and it is there if the defendants need it.
MR RAMPTON: Then, my Lord, it is up to the Plaintiff, the
Claimant, to point to those -- I do not mean in any sense
that it is a great deal -- few parts of what Professor
Lipstadt wrote, specific parts, that the Defendants have
. 29
not sought specifically to justify, and to say those parts
are outside section because they are so serious; what is
more, I am entitled to damages for them because they are
distinct and severable allegations and not part of a
common sting.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think, to be fair, from what I have read of
Mr Irving's closing statement, he makes very clear what he
says has not been proven by the Defendants.
MR IRVING: Round about page onwards.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: He does not perhaps dot the I by saying, "and
that is a severable allegation, which means that, it not
having been justified, I am entitled to damages", but that
is the thrust of the way he puts it, as I understand it.
MR IRVING: I did look at Gatley last night on the severable
allegation aspect of it and I am not sure that that is
relevant in this particular matter. I tried to work it in
but I found that I could not.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Whether it is severable or not?
MR IRVING: Whether it is severable or not.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: There may be something in that. I really do
not, if I may say so, think that this is a satisfactory
way of dealing with it.
MR IRVING: Not in my closing submissions?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: If you want to make a closing speech and make
whatever points you like, then of course please do so,
Mr Irving, and then Mr Rampton can separately reply to
. 30
those submissions, rather than having odd points batted
around, because it is becoming unstructured and completely
unhelpful.
MR IRVING: May I therefore now put to the court by way
submission the pages of this relating to Pamyat and
Hisbollah and those allegations?
MR RAMPTON: I really find this very difficult. I have not had
Mr Irving's submission long enough even to have had time
to look at it. If I had had, I might have had something
to say about it. It is as simple as that. I do not think
at this stage in the case it is satisfactory. I am
leaving aside entirely the inconvenience to your
Lordship. It is not satisfactory to the other party that
the Claimant should suddenly stand up and make a row of
oral submissions.
MR IRVING: My Lord this submission is --
MR RAMPTON: I am sorry, Mr Irving. If Mr Irving has serious
submissions of fact and law to make about the defence and
the way in which it is presented, then we should have them
in writing and in time to respond to them. We have not
had that opportunity.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Rampton, I am sorry, I had expected that
today you would be making your submissions, and you do not
want to make them.
MR RAMPTON: But they are all in here, both of law and of fact,
in seriatim and in detail. I have nothing to add to what
. 31
I wrote.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Very well. Subject to either of you, I think
I will adjourn now and we will resume tomorrow, but
I would like to be absolutely clear in my own mind,
because there seems to have been some confusion about
today, what it is that is proposed to be done tomorrow.
Are we just having statements for public consumption? If
so, how long is each side likely to take and is there
going to be anything else dealt with tomorrow?
MR RAMPTON: No. I have no present intention and, if I should
be prompted to change that, of course, I will tell your
Lordship. I have no present intention of making any
submissions on the facts or the law that are not contained
in this file. I therefore intend, with your Lordship's
permission, to make a relatively short, maybe an hour and
a half, two hour statement, setting out in summary what
the Defendants' case is to show that what Professor
Lipstadt wrote and Penguin published was in substance true
in every single respect. That includes, for example, the
Hitler portrait, which is a mere aspect of a wider
allegation of Hitler partisanship. It includes the
Stockholm meeting, which in its natural meaning is merely
a particular example of a much wider picture, that is to
say adherence to and association with right-wing,
anti-Semitic principles and people.
MR IRVING: My Lord, I must then ask you to advise me whether
. 32
tomorrow I should make a separate submission on section
matters, or whether I can leave it bound up in my closing
statement as I do.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: I would leave it bound up if I were you, but
what are you proposing to do? Like Mr Rampton, speak for
an hour and a half, two hours?
MR IRVING: Based upon a cut down version of this text, I will
speak the same length as Mr Rampton.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Very well. 10.30 tomorrow.
(The court adjourned until the following day).
. 33
Home ·
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Search
Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.