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