Mengi V Hermitage 2102 Trial Transcript

MENGI v HERMITAGE
19 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 8 [Page 982]
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No: HQ10D04585 QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 2 Royal Courts of Justice, 3 Strand, London WC2A 2LL 4 Monday, 19th November 2012 5 Before: 6 MR. JUSTICE BEAN 7 ---------8 BETWEEN: 9 REGINALD MENGI 10 Claimant 11 -and12 SARAH HERMITAGE Defendant 13 ---------14 15 (Transcript of the Stenograph/Shorthand Notes of Marten Walsh Cherer Ltd., 1st Floor, Quality House, 16 6-9 Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1HP. Telephone No: 020 7067 2900. 17 email - info@martenwalshcherer.com) 18 ---------19 MR. RICHARD RAMPTON QC and MR. AIDAN EARDLEY (instructed by Whitman Breed) appeared for the Claimant. 20 MR. JAMES PRICE QC and MR. JONATHAN BARNES (instructed 21 by Carter-Ruck) appeared for the Defendant. 22 ---------23 PROCEEDINGS EVIDENCE DAY 8 24 ---------ALL TRANSCRIPTS PREPARED WITHOUT CASE DOCUMENTS 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT another question. Those are the first three website publications and, also, the fourth, where the tone is slightly less aggressive and the two e-mail publications. I do not need to take your Lordship to those documents because they are very familiar by now. Those are the meanings which we say an ordinary member of the public, who we have no idea, reading the website would have arrived at. That is an objective question; it has to be a reasonable response to what is written, as your Lordship knows. If you say that somebody has made a promise to do something and lied when they made that promise, that really does not require any elaboration from me. It is a jury question, if I might put it like that; a lie is a lie. I will say at once something about the suggestion that there are occasionally (and there are) occasions on which an inference, although it appears to be an inference of fact, can be defended as a comment, which is one that of Mr. Price's submissions. I will mention it now so as to get it out of the way. That arises only in these circumstances, my Lord. Actually, the law on this is summarised in our skeleton argument before the trial at paragraph 16, first of all, on page 5. This is taken from the summary by the Supreme Court,
[Page 981]
1
[Page 983]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22
CLOSING - CLAIMANT
CLOSING - CLAIMANT or was it the House of Lords? I cannot remember. It must have been the Supreme Court in Joseph v Spiller. For this purpose, the three rules (and they are rules) which matter are numbers (2), (3) and (4). "(2) The comment is recognisable as comment (as distinct from an allegation of fact), (3) The comment is based on facts which are true (or privileged)...." You can comment upon a privileged report of court proceedings, for example. Also, (3) The comment implicitly or explicitly indicates, at least in general terms, the facts on which it is based." There are three principles which flow from that in relation to so-called inferential comments. The first is that an inference must appear as an inference. It must set out facts and then the writer must say something like this (and implicitly -- I am summarising): "I infer from those facts the following....", namely that the claimant was misconducting himself or something of that kind. What you cannot do is to mis-describe what somebody does and then comment on that. If you choose to set out the facts in the words complained of and the facts are defamatory statements of fact, they must be justified.
2 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes, Mr. Rampton? 3 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, I will, if I may, go straight to the 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
question meaning; not at length because I have done it once already in opening, as your Lordship has noted, and once at some length in cross-examination as to Ms. Hermitage's state of mind. We have set out in our written closing argument what we believe is a fair summary of the effect of the allegations complained of in this case. I hope your Lordship has got both that document -- as I shall go through it not so as to read it out, but with some rigour to make the points that I wish to submit to your Lordship -- and I hope your Lordship has also got a copy of our opening argument?
15 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
16 MR. RAMPTON: Good. I shall not make much reference to that, but 16
there are parts of it which are useful in relation to the law of qualified privilege in particular. Your Lordship sees on page 5 of our written argument how we summarise what we have called allegation 1. This we take to be the allegation of lying, making false promises, to be an allegation essentially of dishonesty; making promise or undertaking you have no intention of carrying out. One can, of course, ask rhetorically why, in this context, Mr. Mengi should ever have thought it sensible to do that, but that is
23 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Can we apply this to the facts of the present 24 case? Some of the website's publications say something like 25
this: "He promised the High Commissioner of the British
[1] (Pages 980 to 983)

MARTEN WALSH CHERER LTD 1ST FLOOR, 6-9 QUALITY COURT, CHANCERY LANE LONDON, WC2A 1HP
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
EMAIL: info@martenwalshcherer.com
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
19 NOVEMBER 2012 [Page 984]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT government he would stop defamatory coverage in his newspapers. He lied." Which of those statements is defamatory? The first one is not, of its nature, defamatory, but you invite me to find that it is untrue? MR. RAMPTON: Yes. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: If I can put it this way, it is not rude, but you say it is untrue and "he lied", clearly you complain of. MR. RAMPTON: Yes, I but it both ways, as a matter of fact. It is untrue. If you state the facts in the words complained of, then the facts must be substantially true. They must be proved to be true. If it is not true that he gave the promise, then the defence fails. Further than that though, the word "lied" implies that the promise was broken and that is defamatory. He made a promise which he broke. The use of a word such as "lied" imports, in our submission (and necessarily imports in this context), dishonesty. A lie is a statement which is known to be false at the time when it is made. There is a difference (and a real difference, a significant difference, for this case anyway) between saying, "He made a promise which he did not keep. What a pity." Some of some of the early postings say, "He seems to have forgotten his promises" and Ms. Hermitage says that was sarcastic. Suppose it was not sarcastic; it is probably not defamatory to
CLOSING - CLAIMANT 2 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. 3 MR. RAMPTON: It is impossible and it is not contended that these
1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
postings were not defamatory. It is perfectly impossible to say of a person that he gave a promise, he did not keep it and, in fact, he lied. It must mean that he had no intention of keeping those promises when he made them. Either that or, as your Lordship said, he changed his mind so rapidly after he had given the promise, that it can properly be proposed, as a matter of fact, that the original promise was insincere. These promises are not premises which somebody in Mr. Mengi's position would lightly give. They concern the content of his newspapers. That is the first point, so I will not say any more as I go along about the defensive comment. It does not arise, unless the words plainly appear as comment. Now, there are passages in some of these publications, all seven of them, as there are, which are arguably comments. Accusations of hypocrisy, for example; plainly capable of being a comment and if a jury found it was a comment, I could not upset it in the Court of Appeal, plainly, as it was not be perverse. However, a finding that these accusations of lying -- I am coming to the second and third allegations equally in the same vein in a moment -- the proposition that these accusations of lying, if that were a finding of a jury, that
[Page 985]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
[Page 987]
CLOSING - CLAIMANT they were mere comments, I would have to say to the Court of Appeal that it was perverse. Juries have a wide latitude on meaning, as do judges when they are sitting as quasi-juries in a defamation case for the purposes of the meaning and for the purpose of deciding whether something is a statement of fact or a comment. However, a finding in these circumstances that these words are a comment, all I will say is, again, the English speaks for itself. The language is plain and it would appear that that is not relevant to what I might call objective interpretation of what Ms. Hermitage said; it is plain that that is what she meant them to mean. My Lord, then I will, if I may, go back to page 6 of our argument. Sorry, it is page 5 and page 6, allegation 2. The starkest, most brutal expression of allegation 2 -- that is to say what one might call corrupt intimidation of the defendant and her husband in order to destroy their investment and grab their property -- is to be found in the website posting for 31st January 2010, which is in 1.2 at page 87. It is worth looking at that one again, if I may invite your Lordship to do so. This is a single posting on a single day. It is the only posting for that day. I need not, perhaps, read the heading and the first two paragraphs, but I will read on
1 2 3 People may think you are incompetent, but no more than that. 4 If, however, you say that the promise or the undertaking 5 or the assurance was a lie, that is a conscious, intentional 6 state of mind. It means that statement was false when you 7 made it and you knew that it was false. That is the ordinary 8 English meaning of "lie". 9 That being so, I revert to what I first said; there is 10 no room for comment here because that form of words, "he lied" 11 or "Mengi lied" attributes, as a matter of fact, a dishonest 12 state of mind to Mr. Mengi. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: It could be either he had lied because when he 13 14 said the words, he had no intention of keeping the promise or 15 whatever he may have intended at the time, he demonstrated 16 within a short time that he was insincere. MR. RAMPTON: Yes, stretching the meaning of the word "lied", in 17 18 my submission. "So-and-so told a lie because, subsequently, 19 his behaviour did not match what he had said." It is a very 20 strong word to use for what might be incompetence, negligence 21 or forgetfulness. 22 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: However, you say, is this right, that it could 23 be either of those sub-meanings, but either of them is 24 defamatory? 25 MR. RAMPTON: Clearly.
say you would do something and then you forgot to do it.
CLOSING - CLAIMANT
[2] (Pages 984 to 987)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT through the third paragraph, if I can? "It would seem that his...." that is President Kikwete "...commitment for both agricultural investment ... (reads to the words) .... forcing the investors from the country." No defence for comment, unsurprisingly, is raised in respect of that nice little piece (and I am being sarcastic). It stands alone. It is possible that some of the readers of this website have read other parts of the website, but even if they had, this is new. There are, in other parts of the website, allegations to the effect that Mr. Mengi uses his newspapers to intimidate or has used his newspapers corruptly to intimidate the Middletons, but this stands alone. Suppose one had read the website and suddenly, at the end of January 2010, one reads this. One says, "Ah, that is what she has been saying all along. This is a corrupt concert party between Mr. Mengi and his brother, Benjamin, to seize the property, to drive the Middletons off their property and to seize it for themselves." The words of the e-mails come to mind and I will come to those in a moment, allegation 3. That is a plain statement of fact and I will deal with this very quickly now: there is no evidence to support such an allegation. It is, if anything, an even more serious allegation than the allegation that he
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 13 14
CLOSING - CLAIMANT complained of. If I say that a man is a murderer and a thief and I prove that he is a murderer, why then the jury would not give me damages for the allegation that he is also a thief because in the context of a true charge of murder, a false charge of theft probably adds nothing to the damage to his reputation. Looking back then, if one may, at page 87 ---you say somebody is a murderer and, in fact, you can only prove that he is a rapist, section 5 does not apply? rapist in the words. To prove that he is a rapist may, it may have some effect on the damages.
9 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: However, is it not right, Mr. Rampton, that if
12 MR. RAMPTON: No application at all, if you do not say he is a
15 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: It is a curiously technical section. 16 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, it derived from the Porter Committee in 1949, I 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
think, and it has been there ever since; it is still there. However, it has no application where there is only one charge. If this is a single charge of corrupt intimidation by Mr. Mengi and his brother, section 5 has absolutely no application to it at all. If there is another charge to be found somewhere in this website, if the website is to be treated as a single publication -- which I will leave for your Lordship to decide -- it seems to us a little bit unreal. It may be that were some avid followers who read every line of
[Page 989]
1 CLOSING - CLAIMANT 2 lied when he made those promises. 3 It is an extremely serious allegation; an allegation of 4 a corrupt conspiracy with his brother, in effect, to raid the 5 farms, push the Middletons out and keep the property for 6 themselves. It is difficult to think, in my ways -- short of 7 criminal assault or murder -- it is difficult to think of a 8 more serious allegation for a man in Mr. Mengi's position. 9 It undermines the whole edifice of everything that he 10 has built up in Tanzania. It is, to use one of Mr. Price's 11 favourite words, shocking and it is without a single shred of 12 evidence to support it. 13 That brings me briefly to mention section 5 of the 14 Defamation Act 1952. Section 5 is pleaded by the defendant, 15 so I have to deal with it. It is at the back of the book if 16 your Lordship has got it. It is on page 1371, Appendix 2.9, 17 section 5, justification. 18 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. 19 MR. RAMPTON: What it says is this: "In an action for liable or 20 slander ... (reads to the words) .... the remaining charges." 21 The first point to be made about that is if section 5 is 22 to apply, it has to apply to a publication, or publications, 23 perhaps, but a publication that contains two or more distinct 24 charges. It cannot be used, as Mr. Price sought to deploy it 25 on Friday, for a lesser charge that is not made by the words
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12
[Page 991]
CLOSING - CLAIMANT this website as it developed day by day, but somehow, as a matter of reality, one doubts it. However, if there were, then there are two charges: there is the charge -- apart from lying, there are three charges, actually. There is the charge of deliberately false promises, lying; there is the charge of deploying his newspapers, deliberately deploying his newspapers so as to intimidate and harass the Middletons and there is this charge of corrupt intimidation and land-grabbing. means, do I not?
11 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: I have to decide what 31st January posting 13 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, you do. 14 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: The article actually begins with the heading at 15 16 17
the top of the page, does it not? So even if one does not look at the rest of the website, one should look at the top half of page 87 as a whole.
18 MR. RAMPTON: Yes. 19 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: The meaning which it suggests to me is that 20 21 22 24 25
both brothers were involved in corruption, but not that Mr. Reginald Mengi, as it were, personally went on to the farm wielding a machete. flexible. The ordinary reader is not stupid, is not literal-minded and nor is he over-suspicious. If that is
23 MR. RAMPTON: I am willing to accept that. One has to be
[3] (Pages 988 to 991)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT your Lordship's view, it may be that some people were a bit more literal-minded, but I do not mind. If it means that Mr. Reginald Mengi, in some way or another, corruptly used his power to intimidate the Middletons so that his brother, Benjamin, could lay hands on the farm, it is every bit as bad. Plainly, what is alleged is a concert party between the two of them, the Mengis. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. MR. RAMPTON: There is no evidence for that whatsoever. Then I come to what I might call allegation 3. It is a sort of half allegation. Mr. Price puts it, I think, in this way: that Mr. Mengi knew and approved of the defamatory articles, the publication of the defamatory articles in his newspapers just before and after the meeting on 13th December 2005. Knew and approved: there is little evidence that he knew, apart from what he was told about. There is no evidence whatever that he approved and, in any case, even if Mr. Price's case could be proved, as he says, to the hilt, there is a huge gap between what he would succeed in proving, which we say he cannot anyway, and what was actually printed and published on this website and in e-mails. The reason I say that is that the allegation of intentionality in relation to the use of the newspapers,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23
CLOSING - CLAIMANT proposed -- I cannot remember which result -- that a series of articles over a period of time in a newspaper on the same subject will have been read and remembered as generality by the readers and that is sometimes said to be context. If it is, I do not mind because one sees what the theme is. If it is not so, then I can go straightaway to the actual words complained of to make precisely the same point. On page 105 is the posting -- the second of the publications complained of -- the posting for 15th December 2009. It starts ---Mr. Rampton, that seems to me realistic because this is not like a series of articles in newspapers where you have thrown away last week's or last month's. It seems to me that somebody who visits Ms. Hermitage's website and reads the latest posting will almost certainly, having bothered to go to the website in the first place, read some more, rather than just reading one page and then going off somewhere else. one has thrown away one has to have a good memory eventually as to what the old copy said, here you can look back. You can trawl back through the website if you wish to do so.
12 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Just pausing on what you have just said,
20 MR. RAMPTON: Yes. Also, moreover, unlike a newspaper, which if
24 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes, quite so. 25 MR. RAMPTON: It is more like a book, which is undoubtedly a
[Page 993]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
[Page 995]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
CLOSING - CLAIMANT alleged use of the newspapers by Mr. Reginald Mengi, is crystal clear. I will show your Lordship why I say that now. However, before I do that I will take up Mr. Price's invitation to consider this website as a whole and to put into the mind of the reader of this piece and other pieces, the context in which they appear; that is to say from mid-June 2009 through to March 2010. After that, it no longer matters. I will take your Lordship back, if I may, to 26th June 2009, on page 130. The actual date of the posting is on page 129. At the top of page 130, one finds this: "Few in Tanzania ... (reads to the words).... using IPP Media." It is quite unambiguous. It is Mr. Reginald Mengi who is assisting his brother's criminal seizure of the farm, his intimidation, by deliberately orchestrating a campaign of defamation against the Middletons so as to assist his brother in making their life so uncomfortable that they are driven from the land. One finds a similar sort of thought ---MR. JUSTICE BEAN: You are inviting me to take this as context. Are you saying that the reader of the publication sued on would do so. MR. RAMPTON: If the position is -- it is unclear how far it goes, but there is authority obviously, that you cannot pluck words out of context and there are cases in which it has been
CLOSING - CLAIMANT single publication. On page 104, this is 15th December, "Reginald Mengi IPP Media openly supports corruption." "Openly supports corruption". Again, I do not have to struggle to give those words their ordinarily English meaning. They mean what they
say; he openly supports corruption. 8 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. 9 MR. RAMPTON: In a moment, we will see what corruption it is; it
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
is his brother's corruption. Then you see the nice picture of Mr. Jackson Kimambo trussed up and hanging from Mr. Mengi's finger. The next page is where the mischief really starts, or where it continues. The last three paragraphs of the posting, just above Sunday, 13th December 2009. "Instead of demonstrating a commitment to investigative journalism ... (reads to the words) .... nothing short of journalistic terrorism." Not much difference between that and what was said on 26th June. Mr. Mengi is conducting, to help his brother out, a cowardly, deliberately inaccurate and abusive attack on the British investors which appears to be nothing short of journalistic terrorism. Journalistic terrorism, any kind of terrorism, is not accidental. It is not born of indifference, it is not born of negligence. It is born of a determination
[4] (Pages 992 to 995)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT to terrify other people into submission. That is what it is alleged that Mr. Mengi is doing with his newspapers and that is an allegation of fact, too. It cannot conceivably be a comment. Strong words, yes, but the underlying allegation is of a deliberate attempt to deploy his newspaper power in such a way as to terrorise the Middletons out of their land. Then there is the allegation of the broken promise, the lie also. So if this is to be read as a whole, one now has three allegations. The broken promises -- interesting that the promise about paying the Middleton's costs only crops up late on, it is the last posting in March 2010. Why was it held back, one wonders? Perhaps the readers were getting bored of hearing about journalistic terrorism and corrupt land-grabbing, so something else had to be slung in; a broken promise about paying their costs, just to keep reader's on their toes and interested. Three allegations, in summary: false promises which Mr. Mengi knew to be false, which he had no intention of keeping when he made them; a corrupt attempt with his brother to deprive them of their land and, in aid of that, this is the third, the deliberate use of his newspapers to tell enough bad stories about the Middletons that they would be intimidated or terrorised into giving in.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT I ask your Lordship to note, it is all in the evidence -- I shall give one or two transcript references, but not, your Lordship will be relieved to hear, a vast number. I do ask your Lordship to bear in mind when it comes to the question of Mr. Mengi's responsibility for what appears in his newspapers, what is written at paragraph 3 on page 2 of our written argument, the final argument. I will perhaps take this opportunity, since one has got that page open, just to remind your Lordship of what Mr. Mengi actually said about this. This is a man who has built up over the years a good deal of successful enterprises, a fair number of successful enterprises in Tanzania. What he does is to start companies -- this is not challenged -- employ competent people to run them and then he moves off and lets them get on with it. He does not have hands-on management. He leaves that to others. This is particularly true of the newspapers. I might ask him, forensically, whether it is at all likely that if Mr. Mengi had told Ms. Joyce Mhaville what to put on the television, she would have made paid the least attention. Your Lordship has seen her in the witness box. She is the Managing Director and also the Managing Editor of ITV. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: You are suggesting she would have paid no notice, are you?
[Page 997]
1 3 5 6 7 8 9
[Page 999]
1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
CLOSING - CLAIMANT two different ways of saying the same thing. taken in isolation. That cannot be so. To an informed reader, as your Lordship now is, yes, very likely. The intimidation, the corrupt intimidation by Mr. Reginald Mengi is different of that of his brother, who uses more physical means, allegedly.
CLOSING - CLAIMANT swift answer if he told her what to do. There is no, evidence in any event, that he ever tried to tell anybody what to do on his newspapers. None at all. It is perfectly true he gets a good deal of favourable coverage in his newspapers. There is no denying that, but as she said, he is a big figure in Tanzania and what he says on subjects like corruption is newsworthy and it is not at all surprising. However, it is a gigantic, it is an impossible leap from that coverage to the suggestion that he tells the people at the newspaper what to publish about himself or, indeed, about anything else. The important references are given. Two of them are given at the bottom of page 2, at footnote 4, to his attitude to how his company should be run. Day 1, page 104-105 and day 2, 294-295. Also, my Lord, I ask you to note day 1, 100-101 and day 2, 271-272.
2 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Perhaps your allegation 2 and allegation 3 are 4 MR. RAMPTON: They might be. They cannot be if allegation 2 is
2 MR. RAMPTON: I would have suggested he would have got a pretty
10 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. 11 MR. RAMPTON: However, it is the same idea. It is, these are 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
acts, as I have said before, these are intentional acts. Dishonesty and terrorism, to put it bluntly. Never mind such things as bad journalism, inaccurate articles; that matters not a fig. It matter not a fig that Mr. Mengi does not reply out personally to letters written to him -- that may be discourteous. What does matter is that there is no evidence at all, none, that Mr. Mengi has deliberately deployed his newspapers with this purpose in mind. I shall come back, obviously, to those letters of February, March and April 2006 and along the road. I will have quite a lot to say about that. What do we get from the other side by way of justification of these allegations? Taking them backwards, if I may, in a sense, I am going to come to the meeting last,
20 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Sorry, where shall I add those? 21 MR. RAMPTON: Opposite footnote 4. One could read -- day 1 to 101 22 23 24 25
first and then 104-105 and then day 2, 271-272 and 294-295. Apart from anything else, with the other activities he now has (and has had for some time), his charitable and other activities, he does not have time to fiddle about with the
[5] (Pages 996 to 999)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
CLOSING - CLAIMANT newspapers. He hardly ever goes there, I know there is a telephone, but still. May I go on then, as it were, and work backwards through the defendant's justification? Starting on page 12, with allegation 3 -- that is to say the malign corrupt use of his newspapers to terrorise the Middletons is essentially what the allegation is -- the best the defence gets is to say now, apparently, that he knew and approved of what the newspapers were publishing about the Silverdale dispute. Not quite, one would suggest, journalistic terrorism conducted by Mr. Mengi in order to assist his brother's property grab. We have set out what we believe is a fair summary of the defendant's case on this in paragraph 32. First of all, his position as owner of the Guardian Ltd: yes, he is the owner, indirectly through Trusts, but he is not a director of the Guardian Ltd.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 13 14 15 16 17 19 21 22 24
CLOSING - CLAIMANT MR. RAMPTON: Let it be accepted. I have never challenged it that the articles were unfair and inaccurate. Let it be accepted. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes, the question is why? MR. RAMPTON: The question is why? I am so sorry, that is quite right, there is evidence about this: Mr. Kimambo is not an employee of the Guardian Ltd., he is a correspondent. He works for something called PSL and there is evidence about that. quite clear. be called as a witness. I do not have to prove anything. I am willing to accept (and have always accepted) that the Middletons had a genuine grievance about the coverage. The question is why? However, the fact that it was cannot possibly indicate Mr. Reginald Mengi. How can it? not? and Mr. Luhanga both said that they had no idea that Mr. Benjamin Mengi was Mr. Mengi's brother. well, will I not?
10 MR. PRICE: The evidence is that PSL belongs to IPP. That is 12 MR. RAMPTON: He is not called as a witness. He does not have to
18 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Just looking at your paragraph 31, Mr. Rampton. 19 MR. RAMPTON: Yes. 20 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: All those witnesses who were involved 21 22
18 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: That is a matter I have got to decide, is it 20 MR. RAMPTON: Yes. Your Lordship will remember that Mr. Mauggo
journalistically in the Silverdale case said they never had instructions, but we never heard from Mr. Kimambo, did we? suggestion that Mr. Kimambo was in the pocked of Mr. Benjamin Mengi. I do not have to prove negatives. The burden of
23 MR. RAMPTON: No, we did not hear from Mr. Kimambo, but there is a 24 25
23 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: I will have to make a finding about that as 25 MR. RAMPTON: Yes. It was said spontaneously in the witness box.
[Page 1001]
1 2
[Page 1003]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT proof is on the defendant.
3 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. 4 MR. RAMPTON: I can ask rhetorically, where is the evidence that 5 6 7
Mr. Mengi ever had anything to do with any of the articles about which the Middletons were complaining? It is quite a serious charge to make of a newspaper proprietor.
8 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes, it is. 9 MR. RAMPTON: It needs good evidence and there is not any. There 10
is a suggestion, that is all.
11 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Why was Mr. Kimambo not called, Mr. Rampton? 12 MR. RAMPTON: It was not considered necessary. 13 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: We know he is alive and well and working for 14
Mr. Mengi's papers. goes into the newspapers. The editors do and they were called. unprofessional Mr. Kimambo's articles were; poor man, being maligned in his absence with no chance to reply. what Mr. Luhanga says. It is evidence against Mr. Kimambo, but he is not on trial here. His journalism is not under the microscope in this court.
15 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, he was not called. He does not decide what 16 17
18 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. We heard a lot from Mr. Luhanga about how 19 20
21 MR. RAMPTON: No, but he will have to live with that. That is 22 23 24
25 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: I am not sure about that, Mr. Rampton.
CLOSING - CLAIMANT It is not something in what Mr. Price calls with the scripts, which were their witness statements. They came out with it in evidence. "I had no idea that he was Mr. Reginald's brother. Mengi is a common name in Tanzania." Even if, suppose for a moment they had been aware of the fact that the two people were brothers, what is there to suggest that Mr. Mengi himself had, as it were, given instructions for this sort of coverage to go on happening? There is not any. There has to be some evidence, even if it is inferential evidence. A newspaper proprietor, who is not a director (and still less as editor) does not properly have the power to interfere in his newspapers. Mr. Mengi has always fought shy of doing anything to tamper with, as he calls it, editorial content. If there were some evidence, apart from rumour and hearsay from Mr. Kabendera, if there were any direct evidence, that would be different. "I overheard Mr. Mengi on the telephone telling the Managing Editor he had got to go on publishing these articles about Silverdale Farm." There is nothing like that. There is an inference based on the mere fact that he is the owner of the newspaper, the brother of the land owner up at Moshi, with whom he does not get on, in a business
[6] (Pages 1000 to 1003)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT sense -- uncontested. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Uncontested? MR. RAMPTON: Yes. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: That he does not get on with his brother? MR. RAMPTON: I said in a business context. Mr. Mengi's uncontested evidence was that every time he spoke to his brother, Ben, about business matters, Ben flew off the handle, went wild. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. MR. RAMPTON: Well, that is so. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes, I do recall his saying that in oral evidence. MR. RAMPTON: He said it several times. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: I was looking over the weekend at the pleadings. If you look at the attended reply, if you look at paragraph 6.6, page 184, "The claimant telephoned Benjamin to express concern at the allegations being levelled against him and to encourage him to seek an amicable solution. Benjamin Mengi told the claimant that he had been pursuing this to no avail, but was prepared to make a further attempt." No mention of screaming there. MR. RAMPTON: No, there is not any mention of screaming there. That was his evidence; when he spoke to Benjamin Mengi on the previous occasion, I think it was around about June or July
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CLOSING - CLAIMANT called as a witness either. In fact, suggestion was made, but not persisted in, that Mr. Mengi had intimidated her into not coming to court. Fairly disgraceful, really. Can I ask your Lordship to look at -- I think it is file 3. It is in tab D. This is an e-mail from Sakina Datoo, I think, to the, I think it is the Swedish ambassador, written on 29th December 2008. Your Lordship will remember that Sakina Datoo actually resigned, I think, in June 2009, six months later.
11 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Sorry, which page are you on? 12 MR. RAMPTON: 185, my Lord. "Your Excellency...." and so on and 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
so forth. The first two or three paragraphs do not matter. I will read the third: "I want to bring to your attention ... (reads to the words) .... discord between him and I." Not only is Sakina Datoo not a supportive witness for the defendant, that paragraph supports exactly what I have just been saying: Mr. Mengi does not interfere in editorial matters. There is the defendants witness saying so in December 2008. She could have been called as a witness to say, "I did not mean that. I was told to say it by Mr. Mengi", which she was not. That has the value of being a near contemporaneous document.
[Page 1005]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
[Page 1007]
1 3
CLOSING - CLAIMANT 2005, Benjamin yelled at him: "Do not interfere with my business." One of the virtues of pleading nowadays is that not every single thing that a witness might say or will say has to be put into a pleading. It does not matter in this context. The question is not whether -- his evidence, as I say, is uncontested, he was not on a good business relationship with his brother. It was not challenged. It does not matter anyway. The evidence has to be such that the court can infer -- if there is no evidence at all, the court has to be able to infer that Mr. Reginald Mengi deliberately orchestrated a campaign against the Middletons in order to oblige his brother and there is no evidence. He is the proprietor. He is not an editor and he is not a director. Those are Mr. Nguma and I think Mr. Mengi's daughter. So why should he interfere, unless he promised to do so, of course. That would be completely different. However, if he has not promised to do so, then there is no reason on earth why he should still interfere with the coverage; still less why he should direct it. He has no interest to direct it. I am coming as I said, obviously, to the promise in a minute. Sakina Datoo, your Lordship might like to look at her status. She is a long way away from the case. She was not
CLOSING - CLAIMANT as ----
2 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Whereas the June letter should be dismissed 4 MR. RAMPTON: Which June letter? 5 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: The June letter of resignation should be 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
dismissed of the bitter rantings of an employee who has fallen out with an employer? it as a demotion so she left, yes. Why is she not in court, one wonders? It is the same question as might arise in relation to Mr. Kimambo. The inference which has to be drawn from the shadowy evidence (and it is shadowy), as a basis for an allegation that Mr. Mengi deliberately orchestrated a campaign of harassment against the Middletons, the fact that he is owner, that he did not intervene to stop it, though to some extent he knew about it, simply will not run. There has to be evidence that he took some active part in that, absent proof that he made a promise to stop it. That is different. He is entitled to wash his hands, as Mr. Price might put it, of what is in the Guardian because he does not run the editorial content and he has no power in the company. He could, I suppose, call an extraordinary general meeting and have the directors dismissed. Beyond that, he has no power to interfere. He is not a director.
8 MR. RAMPTON: She did not get the job she wanted and she regarded
[7] (Pages 1004 to 1007)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT Of course, it may be said, "Oh well, he might have had a word in somebody's ear." He would regard that as wholly improper and there is no evidence that he did. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Have a word in anybody's ear? MR. RAMPTON: No. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: No. MR. RAMPTON: None at all. MR. RAMPTON: This is, if I may suggest it, why -- and I will turn to these letters in a moment when I am dealing with the alleged promise, it is clear that since he is not a director of The Guardian, has no editorial function in The guardian, that is the reason why when he gets those letters in March and April 2007 he writes on the top a note to Mr. Nguma, "this is a Guardian matter". That is entirely consistent with his position, "It is not my affair, I am not going to interfere." They are written to him, and he said, "No, this is for The Guardian to deal with." Your Lordship will remember Mr. Nguma's evidence, so far as the letter to the Managing Editor of The Guardian, Mr. Nguma is a director of The Guardian, "I realise that I was conflicted because I was acting for Benjamin Mengi. I therefore told the people at The Guardian that they ought top ut their complaints mechanism in place." I will give your Lordship the reference when I have
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT Benjamin Mengi." That is exactly what one would expect if one was in Mr. Reginald Mengi's shoes to happen. This one he did not hand on because he never got it. When get a letter, he hands it to Mr. Nguma to deal with. Mr. Nguma is a director The Guardian as well as being IPP's inhouse lawyer, but that has nothing to do with it. It is a matter for The Guardian and it is not a matter for him because he will not interfere. It is different, as I have said, if he had promised to interfere and put a stop to it. I will go directly to that now, if I may. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Just a moment. (Pause) Yes. MR. RAMPTON: The alleged promises. Embedded in that I shall addressing the question whether something like, "I will look into it," was said by Mr. Mengi and, if it was, what its significance might or might not be. Can I first deal with it in this way, the only contemporaneous evidence of what was said at that meeting comes from Mr. Middleton, Mr. Mengi, and Dr. Pocock. Mr. Middleton is adamant that Mr. Mengi made the promises alleged. Your Lordship will remember that I put it to him that something like, "I will look into it," was said and he was adamant that it was not. He said, "No." "He promised that he would put a stop to it," Dr. Pocock is adamant -- not adamant, he is clear -- that no such promise was given. That is in paragraph 8 of his witness statement.
[Page 1009]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
[Page 1011]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT found it. He said to the people at The Guardian, "I am conflicted. You should put your complaints mechanism into motion. You should investigate it. If you think that you need to take legal advice then you must go to external lawyers because I am conflicted." That letter did not even get to Mr. Mengi. Of course it did not because it was not addressed to him. It was addressed to The Guardian. He does not see material that is addressed to The Guardian. That was dealt with by Mr. Nguma, the letter of 24th February 2006. When he gets a letter, he says, "NL This is a Guardian matter." The reference is Day 2, page 304. Perhaps one should just look at it. I was asking him in-chief about that letter of 24th February 2006. I had told your Lordship that I took the view that what he said to The Guardian was not privileged. Anyway, he could waive the privilege because he is a director of the company. I asked him, at line 4, on page 304: "What advice, if advice it be called, what advice did you give to the managing director of the Guardian in relation to this letter? (A) I told him to use their complaints settlement to investigate the matter; and if they did find there was some wrongdoing, they should consult an external lawyer, because I had a conflict of interest with the defendant in the case I was doing for
CLOSING - CLAIMANT So, of course, is Mr. Mengi. Perhaps most tellingly of all is what Dr. Pocock said in his letter the next day. Your Lordship will remember that Mr. Middleton's evidence was that Dr. Pocock did not say much but took notes. One may reasonably assume that a person in his position, if he took notes, will have used those notes as the basis for his record, not a verbatim record, as a basis for his summary of the meeting when he wrote the next day. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. MR. RAMPTON: He says, and I ask your Lordship to turn it up, it is page 196 of File 2.1, apart from the introductory pleasantries in the first paragraph: "Stewart [Mr. Middleton] set out his concerns" and Dr. Pocock sets out what those were. There seems to be no dispute whatever that Mr. Middleton did say things of that kind. What is lacking from that paragraph, which is common ground Mr. Middleton did say, is that he made a complaint about the newspaper coverage. Mr. Mengi accepts that he did: "You made clear your own position that you [Mr. Mengi] it was possible to resolve the matter ....(reads to the words).... we both appreciated this. We understand that you cannot guarantee success." Not only is there no promise mentioned, no assurance, or undertaking as he says in his witness statement. He says in paragraph 8 of his witness statement: "I do recall Mr. Mengi
[8] (Pages 1008 to 1011)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT saying he would look into the coverage but I do not myself remember any undertaking from Mr. Mengi to stop the newspaper referring to the Silverdale case during that meeting." One can be perhaps as certain as anything that someone as careful as the British High Commissioner, who had taken an interest in this case for some considerable time and who had taken a note of what was being said at the meeting, if that had happened and Mr. Mengi had said, "Oh, well, I will see to it that no more newspaper articles of this kind appear in my newspapers," that that would have been recorded in clear print in this letter by Mr. Pocock. Not only does it not appear, there is no mention of the newspaper coverage at all. One's suspicion is, one's belief if you like, and a natural inference from this is that it was mentioned in passing but it was what one might call nowadays, it was no big deal and it passed off, and the meeting went on to concentrate on what was its principal purpose, to explore whether there was ground for a meeting and a resolution between Mr. Benjamin Mengi and Mr. Middleton. Again, I ask the question rhetorically, is it credible that the High Commissioner would not have recorded a promise of that kind if it had been made and would not have remembered it seven years later, perhaps, when he came to make his witness statement.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT telling Mr. Nguma. The first thing he does or the second thing, I know not, is to underline that sentence in the third paragraph, "you personally gave an undertaking", and put three question marks against it. Then he says at the top of the page, "I did not give the underlined undertaking." Why would he do that if he had given it, one asks oneself. It has all the appearance of a spontaneous reaction some, what is it, four months after the meeting. One asks oneself, why, given her propensity, and this is not a criticism but given her propensity for putting pen to paper when she believes she has a grievance. There had by this time, indeed by the time she first wrote, Miss Hermitage, in February, there had by that time already been four articles which are said to have been objectionable: 3rd January, two of them on the 19th, and one I think on 2nd February. She mentions it for the first time in April. One is bound to say that is not natural. If she had been told by Mr. Middleton that Mr. Mengi had given the clear undertaking that there would be no more such articles, it is inconceivable that on the appearance of the first of those articles she would have rushed to write a letter complaining that those articles were in breach of the undertaking. Instead, she does not come out with it until four months later
[Page 1013]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
[Page 1015]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 13
CLOSING - CLAIMANT MR. JUSTICE BEAN: The same point, perhaps, can be made both ways, can it not? If the claimant had said, "I can't do anything about this. I have a policy of non-interference," would Dr. Pocock have said, "I think the claimant said he would look into the coverage." MR. RAMPTON: If he did say it. He does not remember saying it and it is not in this letter. That is not the same thing, anyway, to say, "I will look into it, look into the matter." That is Dr. Pocock's recollection. I am not saying he is not trying to recollect, of course he is. It comes nearly seven years after the meeting. This is the best record we have of the meeting and if it had been a big issue and Mr. Mengi had said, plainly, "Yes, I will look into it and put a stop to it," that would have been in the letter. It is not because it was not said. Mr. Mengi does not mention it in his letter two days later, either. He says he has talked to Ben and this is what Ben is currently offering, a preliminary discussion, nothing about the newspapers at all. Then if one goes on in this file to see what his reaction was when he got the letter at the third opportunity, the letter of 19th April 2006, from Mr. Middleton, asserting that he had personally given an undertaking that the articles would cease, the libelous articles, what is his reaction. This is not for publication, this reaction, this is what he is
CLOSING - CLAIMANT after she already had written two letters in February and in March without mentioning it. The weight of the evidence, the balance of probabilities, on all the evidence must be that he gave no such promise and Mr. and Mrs. Middleton decided, if I may use a colloquialism, to up the ante, to try and put pressure on Mr. Mengi. blackmail, let's not beat about the bush. that is in January 2010, on the back of a promise which was never made. It must be right, if is not made.
9 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: You put it to her that it is lies and 11 MR. RAMPTON: Yes. Not at this stage, the blackmail comes later,
14 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: They have invented it ---15 MR. RAMPTON: Yes. 16 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: -- so that it is malice for the purpose of 17 18
defamation law, it is lies, and they committed perjury. There is no mistake about ----
19 MR. RAMPTON: Either they have or Mr. Mengi has. 20 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. 21 MR. RAMPTON: Yes. It is an unfortunate choice. They have to 22 23 24 25
have some evidence, apart from Mr. Middleton. We have two witnesses, one says, "I didn't say it," and the other one says, "You did say it." What does the contemporaneous evidences suggest: contemporaneous, I stress that. It is
[9] (Pages 1012 to 1015)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
1 CLOSING - CLAIMANT 2 possible, of course, that Mr. Mengi said something in passing, 3 off the cuff, inconsequential, non-committal, "I will look 4 into it." That cannot be characterised as a promise to stop 5 the defamation. 6 I gave Mr. Middleton the opportunity of saying that is 7 how he understood those words, if they were said. He said, 8 no. He said, "No, that was not what I meant. I meant that the 9 promise was given." I will find the reference so that your 10 Lordship can see this exchange. It is an important exchange 11 sincere is no slipping out of it so far as the Middletons are 12 concerned. It is on the penultimate day of the evidence. 13 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Is it 630? 14 MR. RAMPTON: It certainly was in my cross-examination. 15 I apologise for my inefficiency. I had it this morning but 16 I have lost it. Yes, it is 630. I am grateful to your 17 Lordship. I put it in this way, at line 12: "(Q) 17th 18 February, and it does not get mentioned until 19th April. The 19 reason is, is it not, Mr. Middleton, that you or she, perhaps 20 both, suddenly had a bright idea, 'I know, he said he would 21 look into the coverage. Let's call that an undertaking.' It 22 is a little jump, is it not, from truth ---- (A) It certainly 23 is not, my Lord. (Q) -- from truth to falsity. (A) It is 24 definitely not, my Lord. (Q) Do you remember his saying, 'I 25 will look into it, I will look into the media coverage.' (A)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 22 23
CLOSING - CLAIMANT dispute at Silverdale, not the articles. It is mentioned in the meeting, Mr. Mengi says he did not think for very long, he does not remember much about it, he does not remember having said anything like what Dr. Pocock remembers, it is possible he did say what Dr. Pocock remembers, but the point is this, if Mr. Middleton had thought that that was a promise he would have said so. It is easy to forget things that have happened; it is very difficult to remember things that have not happened. If they did not happen, and the witness deposes that they did, then the witness is not telling the truth. It is quite possible, as I said, that Mr. Mengi said something inconsequential and non-committal. Mr. Middleton will not have that. Mr. Middleton was there and Mr. Middleton says, unambiguously, that Mr. Mengi promised to stop the coverage. That is his evidence. He is either right or he is wrong. inconsequential. He said, "It is nothing to do with me. I am not the editor. I never tamper with any...." not my responsibility. I am not the editor." That is common ground. He did say that.
18 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: But your case is that he did not say anything
21 MR. RAMPTON: He did say, "I am not aware of the articles. It is
24 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. 25 MR. RAMPTON: So? How does that transform itself into a promise
[Page 1017]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
[Page 1019]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
CLOSING - CLAIMANT No. (Q) You do not? So, Dr. Pocock is wrong about that, too, is he? (A) Yes." It is a clear choice, Mr. Middleton did not take, if it was said, "I will look into it," as a promise to stop the coverage. His case is that the promise was clearly made. The question for the court is, was it. Not was something said, which somebody else might have understood as an undertaking to stop the coverage, or at least look at it, but whether the promise was made. That was Mr. Middleton's evidence. He was at the meeting.
CLOSING - CLAIMANT to stop the coverage, is my question. It does not. If there is no promise, then the subsequent coverage becomes inconsequential as a justification for the accusation of lying, unquestionably. And if the promise was not made, it is impossible, inconceivable, that Mr. Middleton could have told his wife that it was, unless, which is the opportunity I gave him, he converted, "I will look into it," into a promise, but he denies that is what happened. He said that is not the case. The case is, on the Middletons' side, that Mr. Mengi said, "I will put a stop to the coverage." He faithfully reported that very promise to his wife, she believed it, and therefore felt justified in saying Mr. Mengi had lied because it did not stop. Now, if he did not say, "I will put a stop to it," then there is no foundation for the suggestion that she could have believed that he did because that is not what Mr. Middleton would have said to her, if it was never said. Why should Mr. Middleton come home or on the telephone say, "He has given a promise to stop the coverage," if he never gave that
12 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. 13 MR. RAMPTON: So was Dr. Pocock and so was Mr. Mengi. 14 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Let's look at it this way. It is common 15 16
ground the subject of the media coverage is raised by Mr. Middleton by way of complaint.
17 MR. RAMPTON: Yes. 18 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: I then have to make a finding of what happened 19
after that, what response, if any, was made.
20 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, if any. 21 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: If any. There might just have been a stony 22
silence.
23 MR. RAMPTON: Might have been. 24 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: And then the parties go their separate ways.
promise. 22 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: He did give some evidence about the phone 23 call.
24 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, he did. I think I asked him about that too.
25 MR. RAMPTON: No, because the main purpose of the meeting was the 25
I think his wife did as well.
[10] (Pages 1016 to 1019)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
1 3
CLOSING - CLAIMANT looks that up in the index....
1 2 3
CLOSING - CLAIMANT is very unlikely. Why would Mr. Middleton tell his wife that something had been said which was not.
2 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: I remember the word "flabbergasted", so if one 4 MR. RAMPTON: It comes at least twice because I used it. 5 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: It comes three times. 6 MR. RAMPTON: It is at the bottom of page 597 in day whatever it 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
4 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. 5 MR. RAMPTON: If it was not a promise made by Mr. Mengi, why then 6 7 8 9 10 11
Mr. Middleton must have said something else to his wife but he is not going to tell her that a promise has been given when it has not. He would have given her a truthful account of the meeting which was to the effect that coverage was discussed, Mr. Mengi denied responsibility for it, but had said that he would look into the matter, or something of that kind. evidence about the phone call? witness statement, certainly, but I think I did ask him about it. There is a passage in which I put it to him that it was very surprising that they had not written when these articles started appearing complaining vociferously about the breach of promise, and Mr. Middleton said he think he telephoned Mr. Mengi. I do not think it was put to Mr. Mengi in cross-examination, I have to say, but I am not sure about that. I say that I do not believe that it was. The cross-examination of Mr. Middleton about this telephone call is at page 616. That is where there is another use of "flabbergasted" by me.
is. Starting at line 18, and this is me: "(Q) Will you please tell us now, tell his Lordship now, precisely what it was you told your wife when you got back from the meeting? (A) My Lord, I did not give the news of or the results of the meeting when I got back; I, in fact, phoned my wife from Dar es Salaam. (Q) Yes. (A) What I told her was that I was flabbergasted, but the claimant had actually agreed, firstly, to stop the use of his media in printing defamatory articles against us; secondly, he had agreed to speak to his brother about the harassment and the third thing was he said he would assist us on registration of the lease and then It old her that on leaving the meeting, as we were leaving the meeting, the claimant had said that he would speak to his brother and sort out the court case and do not worry about the legal costs." That is unambiguous. It is not an interpretation of, "Oh, I will look into it." That is why I gave him the opportunity a little later to comment on that possibility, and he denied it. If the promise had not been given, none of
12 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. Did you ask Mr. Middleton about the 13 14 MR. RAMPTON: I did. Yes, I did. It was not in Mr. Middleton's 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
[Page 1021]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 24 25
[Page 1023]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 17 18 19 20 21
CLOSING - CLAIMANT those promises had been given, then it is inconceivable that he would deliberately have misled his wife by telling her that they had been given. What earthly purpose would that have served. It follows that if his account of what Mr. Mengi said is untruthful, he will have told her the truth, which is that Mr. Mengi had denied, which he evidently did report to his wife, had denied responsibility for the articles and said he was not aware of them, and might have said, if he did, that he would look into the matter. He passed that on to his wife and there would not have been these website postings and emails accusing Mr. Mengi of having lied, but there were. This means that as with the letter of 19th April 2006, the allegation is an invention. I had thought at one time that it might be an exaggeration but it now appears from Mr. Middleton's evidence that if the promise clear and simple, too good, as one might put it, was not given then the allegation of lying is itself a lie. that evidence which we have just been looking at from Mr. Middleton is untruthful as well. that he gave her a false version of the meeting. He could have said he promised knowing all along that he did not but it
CLOSING - CLAIMANT That was to Dr. Pocock. His witness statement merely says that he telephoned Dr. Pocock to say that Benjamin Mengi's offer of settlement was rejected. That is what he said he told Mr. Reginald Mengi as well. Notice, if your Lordship will, that Dr. Pocock's witness statement says nothing of this at that time. The last paragraph of his witness statement says that Mr. Middleton telephoned him in 2010 and asked him if he remembered such an undertaking, and he said no. You would think that (sic) Mr. Middleton might remember a telephone call from an enraged Mr. Middleton, if he had received one. reference to the phone call which Mr. Middleton said he made to his wife on the way home from the meeting in Dar es Salaam? reference to "flabbergasted" on page 597: "What I told her was that I was flabbergasted but the claimant had actually agreed, firstly, to stop the use of his media in printing defamatory articles against us," and so on. That is what he says he told her.
13 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. Have you or has Mr. Eardley found any
16 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, we just read it, my Lord. It is the first
20 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: It must follow from that last submission that
22 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: I see. 23 MR. RAMPTON: She confirmed it. That is his report of the 24 25
23 MR. RAMPTON: Probably, yes. As I say, it is not very likely
meeting from which it follows, as I have suggested, that if the promise was not given, then for some reason he has set out
[11] (Pages 1020 to 1023)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT to deceive his wife and that seems unlikely. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. Thank you. MR. RAMPTON: It is, as your Lordship is used to hearing I have no doubt, an unhappy and difficult choice to make between conflicting, and they are conflicting in the starkest possible way, conflicting accounts of what was said at that meeting. So far as the defendant is concerned, she has only her husband's recollection to support his account of that meeting, except for a single reference to that undertaking about press coverage in a letter dated 19th April 2006, which has imprinted on it Mr. Mengi's spontaneous reaction, that that undertaking was never given, spontaneous and immediate. So, if one is trying to balance the probabilities, which is what one must do, I would respectfully suggest that that one needs to look at the contemporaneous evidence. As I suggested in opening, the contemporaneous evidence is actually (and I know advocates are apt to say this somewhat enthusiastically and optimistically) all one way, the contemporaneous evidence. If the newspaper coverage was an important question at the meeting, and a solemn undertaking had been given, to ease the Middletons' anxiety by putting a stop to the coverage with which they were so unhappy, it is not conceivable, first, that Dr. Pocock would not have made a note of it, and unhappily the
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 15 17 18
CLOSING - CLAIMANT come to the law of qualified privilege in a moment, it is quite voluminous and I will try and do this as quickly as possible -- but if it is right that the defence of justification fails because none of the promises was ever given, none of them recorded by Dr. Pocock, none of them remembered by Dr. Pocock, if they were never given then it follows almost inevitably that what Miss Hermitage wrote on her website and in her emails was known by (inaudible) to be untrue at the time when she wrote those pieces. That is the best evidence of malice that exists. a short break there? your pardon. flood. We will break off now until 10 past 12. (Short adjournment)
12 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: You are pausing, Mr. Rampton. Shall we take 14 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, I am sorry. I have rambled on a bit. I beg 16 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: No, you have not rambled but you were in full
19 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. 20 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, I have dealt as much as I need to with the 21 22 23 24 25
defence of comment. I will not trouble your Lordship any more about that. There is a defence of privilege, qualified privilege which takes two forms, response to attack or reply to attack and what I might call conventional duty and interest privilege. There is a lot of law about this and some of it is
[Page 1025]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
[Page 1027]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
CLOSING - CLAIMANT notes appear to have been lost; secondly, that he would not have put it into the letter, because it would have been an agreement and Mr. Mengi, having given the promise, would not have been surprised to see it. If Dr. Pocock had said, "I am grateful to you for undertaking to have this sort of article not published any longer in your newspaper," if that is what he had said it would be there, and it is not. There is only one reason why it is not there, because it was an important issue for the Middletons, and it still is, and one can say quite unequivocally and unapologetically, if you like, that there is no question but that those articles were unfair and damaging to the Middletons, there is no question, it was an important issue for them, Mr. Middleton is plainly upset at the memory of it even now, and it is not conceivable at that meeting with Dr. Pocock, if Mr. Mengi had said clearly and unequivocally, "Don't worry about it, I will put a stop to it. I will have a word with whoever it is and put a stop to it," that Dr. Pocock would not have recorded it. This is not some casual bar room conference, this is a serious meeting to try and resolve all anxieties and concerns which the Middletons have. That is why Mr. Mengi offered himself as a mediator. It is not in Dr. Pocock's letter because it was not said. If that is right, that is essentially the end of the case because whatever -- and I will
CLOSING - CLAIMANT very up-to-date. So far from living in the 19th century, as Mr. Price suggested at one stage, I am fortunately for me bang up and abreast with modern statements of the law of qualified privilege in both those forms. We would suggest that I do not for this purpose need a lot of authority but I will, if your Lordship will forgive me, ask your Lordship to look briefly at reply to attack, paragraph 14.48 on page 486 of the latest edition of Gatley.
10 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Is this referred to in your skeleton? 11 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, it is somewhere. 12 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Can I turn up the paragraph? 13 MR. RAMPTON: It is referred to but I am not sure we quoted it so 14 15 16
it is worth seeing what Eady J actually said. Some of it is a quote from an older case but would your Lordship turn up the
actual paragraph, please? 17 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. 18 MR. RAMPTON: It is page 486. I will read the text first: 19 "Similar to the principle is one whereby a person whose
20 21 22 23 24 25
character or conduct has been attacked ....(reads to the words).... and provided they are published bone fide and are fairly relevant to the accusations made." Then the quote from the case of Hamilton v Clifford, where Eady J was the judge: "The law justifies a man in repelling a libelous charge by denial or an explanation
[12] (Pages 1024 to 1027)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 15 16 17 19 21 22 23 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT ....(reads to the words).... proportionate response which was appropriate both in terms of subject matter and scale of publication." My Lord, that is an important consideration. The publication of a defamatory statement in the House of Commons, answer privileged by somebody who was not a member of parliament, by means of a letter in The Times newspaper. However, to use the words from another old case, one must not enlarge the constituency. You have to try and speak to the people who first heard the attack on you. constituency, is that a quotation or is it your own words? called Lawton v Bishop of Sodor and Man, as far as I remember. If your Lordship would like it later we will send you the reference to that. penultimate paragraph. there it is. That is Murphy v Halpin. Yes, that is an Irish case, apparently, not Lawton v Bishop of Sodor and Man. Anyway, there it is. the present case, does it? If it is made in private before
12 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: The reference to not enlarging the 14 MR. RAMPTON: No, it is a quotation from an old case, I think,
18 MR. PRICE: It is referred to on page 488 of Gatley, the 20 MR. RAMPTON: I am at 486, that is why I did not see it. Yes,
24 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: It does not seem to have much application to
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT it is that the claimant may have said. That is response to attack. To go beyond that and start besmirching the claimant's name in all sorts of other ways is not a response to an attack. It is an independent and freestanding libel of its own. The third proposition is this. Once the response has been given effectively and proportionately, there is no privilege for its continued repetition. Your Lordship will have seen when I was cross-examining Miss Hermitage that in her earlier postings on the website although she had to set out some of the articles since they were not available on the IPP website, she gave a full and proportionate response to what those articles alleged. There was no need to go further, as she eventually did, and enter the fray with what I might call additional weapons, calling Mr. Mengi a liar and a journalistic terrorist. The response to the attack did not even need to mention Mr. Mengi. It is quite sufficient to say, "These articles are defamatory and unfair, this is the true story," which is what she started out by doing. The other question, I suppose, is this. If you are going to respond to an attack it has to be, and as I said the passage of time has something to do with it, an article or an attack in this case in an article, it has to be an attack with
[Page 1029]
1 2 3 4
[Page 1031]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
CLOSING - CLAIMANT two or three persons only, the defendant has no right to enlarge the constituency and publish his defence to the general public through the newspapers.
CLOSING - CLAIMANT which the readers of your response are going to be familiar, whether because they read it and if they have because they remembered it. We can see from Miss Hermitage's website that in several cases she had to drag the relevant article out of her computer, or wherever it was -- maybe it was a hard copy -- print it for the benefit of her readers and then respond to it.
5 MR. RAMPTON: I am not suggesting that if what Miss Hermitage 6 wrote in her website is truly speaking a response to an attack 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
in Mr. Mengi's newspapers, a website is not a reasonable proportionate means of trying to reach the same public. Of course, that is not necessarily so when we come to emails to every Bishop in Tanzania. At the moment, I put it this way, that is not the problem with the defences raised. Can I read on and I will come to what I believe the problems are: "In order for a defendant to avail himself of this form of privilege, the response should not go into irrelevant matters ....(reads to the words).... if it is not reasonably necessary for defending his own reputation." Add to that two further propositions: first, plainly, the passage of time since the attack was first published must be a relevant, not a decisive but a relevant consideration and, secondly, and perhaps more important, it has to be apparent to the court that what was being said was a response to an attack -- there are three propositions and this is the second one -- and not, as it were, a fresh and initiative in defamation, a response to an attack, you cannot believe that, he is lying, or whatever it is that the first person, whatever
9 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Is that determinative in law? 10 MR. RAMPTON: No. The determinative question is whether this was 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
an occasion on which the response to the attack would be privileged because a response would be apt to put the matter right in the eyes of those who were aware of the original attack. If yesterday I read an article in Mr. Mengi's newspaper attacking the Middletons, Miss Hermitage is perfectly entitled to say, "There is not a word of truth in that." But if she prints the defamatory article, because nobody else can any longer access it or remember it, and then responds to it, that is not privileged in itself. She is introducing the attack for the purpose of rebutting it, not responding to it. In any event, I care less about that particular objection, though it is a sound objection, I submit. What I care much more about is the question of whether what is in this website is, in reality, a response to an attack at all.
[13] (Pages 1028 to 1031)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
1 2 3 4 5
CLOSING - CLAIMANT There is a case called Blackwell. I hope you have this case as well. Can I hand that up? I am sorry, your Lordship is going to get everybody's copy. I do not think that is of much use.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
6 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: There is a bundle of authorities with 27 7 authorities in it; and in the great traditions of the English 8 9
bar, we are going to start on numbers 28 onwards and ignore 1 to 27.
10 MR. RAMPTON: I am afraid it is; but this happens to be where this 11 part of the argument lands me. 12 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. 13 MR. RAMPTON: That is just one version, is it? That is also for 14 his Lordship, please. If your Lordship would be patient with 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
me for a moment, I will try and find where I am. My Lord, I am on page 19, and both these two cases are cases referred to in paragraph 56. The first case is a case called Blackwell v. News Group Newspapers Limited. The newspaper, which I think was the Sun, had published some remarks -- this is a football case, my Lord -- by the former Chelsea (I think he was), and then Leeds manager, or owner, I think he was, Mr. Ken Bates, and they were defamatory of Mr. Kevin Blackwell. The words are set out on the first page of the report. This is from the EMLR, the Entertainment Media Law Reports, I think.
CLOSING - CLAIMANT decide whether the relevant defendant was indeed replying to an attack so as to give rise to an occasion of privilege. That may be either on behalf of himself or another person whose reputation he had reason to defend." My Lord, that in this case is common ground. "Secondly, it may be necessary to inquire if the response was so excessive or disproportionate as to fall outside the scope of any privilege that might otherwise be available. Here, Mr. Crystal" -- that was the claimant's counsel -- "puts his argument both ways. I do not accept that what Mr. Bates said can be characterised as responding to an attack, whether on himself or on any other individual he was seeking to protect. He was holding forth about a number of targets who were in his sights at the time of which the claimant happened to be one. He was simply having a go at those he thought had contributed to Leeds United's problems, as no doubt have hundreds of other fans and commentators." One asks the rhetorical question: having set out in her early postings her response to the articles to which she objected, which she is quite entitled to do, how far was what she later said on several different occasions, five different occasions on the website from 5th December 2006 onwards, how far can that really be characterised as a reply to an attack by Mr. Mengi's newspapers, what she said about him, an attack ad hominem accusing him of having made
[Page 1033]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
[Page 1035]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
CLOSING - CLAIMANT MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Not the version that I have. MR. RAMPTON: No, nor the version that I have. I am slightly puzzled. It is (inaudible). That is why it has got the representation on the top. The words are in paragraph 2. This is what Mr. Bates was quoted as having said in the newspaper. "I will tell you now, Dennis Wise is staying as manager. Unlike that cheeky sod, Kevin Blackwell, he is not in the excuse making business. Blackwell said the club wouldn't have been relegated" -- this is Leeds United -- "last week if he had still been in charge. He's right. We would have been relegated in December. He lost control of the dressing room and left it in complete disarray." So far as a football manager is concerned, that is obviously defamatory. There were two forms of privilege: there was a sort of quasi Reynolds for publication to the world at large, which failed, and there was reply to attack. Paragraph 6 might be a place to start. Mr. Crystal, who was for the claimant: "What the claimant was doing was defending or puffing his own confidence and professional skill" -- sorry, I have got it the wrong way round. "Not only was he not primarily attacking Mr. Bates, but it is a fact that Mr. Bates was not mentioned at all." It is perfectly right; he was not. Then in paragraph 7, Eady J says this: "Sometimes in this context two issues become intertwined and difficult to separate. First, one has to
CLOSING - CLAIMANT dishonest promises and of having conducted or orchestrated a corrupt and intimidatory newspaper campaign against herself and her husband? There would have to be something more in the nature of a public interest in receiving that information -and I will come to that as the second limb of privilege -- in receiving this information before it can be privileged. Those postings were not a reply to any attack that had been made in the claimant's newspapers, the more so since those attacks (such as they are) inaccuracies had already been rebutted. In that last regard, I ask your Lordship to look at the ----
12 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Sorry, those attacks had already been.... 13 MR. RAMPTON: Rebutted, in the earlier part of the website. She 14 15 17
set out the attacks, said what they were, and said why they are wrong. responded once, you cannot try again?
16 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: But is there any law saying that once you have 18 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, there is. 19 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Well, please show me, because surely, if you 20 21 22 24 25
are right, that is the end of this part of the case: you have published more than one article on the website, bang, you lose; there is nothing else to discuss. you can say, "Well, no, that is not right. What he has now said is wrong," and so on and so forth. But if what you are
23 MR. RAMPTON: If what I might call the ping-pong is continuing,
[14] (Pages 1032 to 1035)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
1 2 3 4 5 6
CLOSING - CLAIMANT complaining about is articles published originally back in 2005 and 2006 and you have set them out on your website and said why they are wrong, what, in the way of reply to attack, what function do personal attacks on Mr. Mengi thereafter serve?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14
CLOSING - CLAIMANT in order to vindicate the character or actions of [the defendants]'. It was not open to them to contend that the purpose of the news release was that of vindicating their characters or actions." In essence, this makes, we would submit, perfectly good sense. You are entitled to have your say in response to a defamatory attack, and you are entitled to call the publisher of that attack a liar. What you are not entitled to do is to go on to the end of time saying, "That man is a liar." There is no occasion for it. Once is enough. are contained in a whole series of articles, it is still the same: you have one shot, or one shot in response to each, and after that you are liable ----
7 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Well, that is a point on the facts. But 8 I understood you to be saying that there is authority to say 9 10 11 12 13 14
that once you have done your one article -- in this case, website article -- responding to an attack, if you do the same again the next day or the next week or the next month, you lose. This must have been decided. If this is so, this must come up again and again, because newspapers have first
11 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: And if the attacks to which you are replying
editions, second editions, series, and so forth. 15 MR. RAMPTON: Yes. That is the point, my Lord. It has not come 16 up in England recently. I do not know that it ever has. But
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
15 MR. RAMPTON: Yes. 16 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: -- says Steytler J. 17 MR. RAMPTON: That is what this case says, yes. 18 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: We had better look at the facts. It seems to 19 21 22 24
it accords with what one might call -- I am not going to use the words common sense -- it accords with good sense. If there is but one attack, there is no occasion or exigency justifying a series of defamatory rebuttals to the same audience. It is gratuitous. The point of the privilege is that those who saw the original attack should be entitled to see the victim's reply. There is no privilege in a repeated and defamatory response to an attack which took place however many years ago.
me rather important. our argument. I do not think that is particularly funny, either. I do not know why it is a cause for mirth. the beginning, so that I can see what the nature of this is.
20 MR. RAMPTON: The facts are more or less correctly summarised in
23 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: I will read through the defamatory article at 25 MR. RAMPTON: Yes. It is, fortunately, not all that long.
[Page 1037]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
[Page 1039]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
CLOSING - CLAIMANT MR. JUSTICE BEAN: You had better show me. If that is what a judge of the Supreme Court of Western Australia has decided, we had better look at it. MR. RAMPTON: Yes. Pages 83 and 84. I think the pagination has got muddled for some reason. I do not know why. I do not think it is particularly funny. I did not do it. I do not care whose fault it is; just to get it sorted out. Where do I start?
CLOSING - CLAIMANT (Pause) MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Right. That is the article. To what attack was it responding? It is rather odd, the concept of a city and its mayor responding to an attack by a corporate (inaudible). MR. RAMPTON: I am just trying to find the original attack. This is a copy. It may not matter very much. (Pause) 78 is probably the best summary. of Sodor and Man on page 81. It does look as though pages 80 and 81 are the same as or very close to the same as English law. anyway. and at the top of 84, he says without authority, other than this case itself. orthodox. The defence of privilege -- I have to go back to basics, I suppose -- is founded on a particular communication to a particular person on a particular occasion, and there has to be a reciprocity of interest or duty if the occasion is to be privileged. What gives rise to reciprocity of interest in the case of reply to attack is that the defendant has been
10 MR. PRICE: Page 83 follows page 84. 12 13
10 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Thank you. There is your case about the Bishop 12 13 15 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25
11 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, I know it does. I am looking for page 83. Can 11
I read the text of our argument first, so as to make it clear what point it is we are making?
14 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. 15 MR. RAMPTON: This is halfway through paragraph 56: "Also 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
14 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, they are. Most of those are English cases 16 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. But then what he says at the bottom of 83
relevant is the question whether the defendant had already responded (or purported to respond). Reply to attack privilege does not entitle a defendant to defame the claimant repeatedly." This is Heytesbury Holdings, the case I have just handed in. "In that case, the defendants had rebutted criticisms of them through a press article on 13th March 1996 and their position had been restated in another article two days later" -- that is the 15th. "In those circumstances, the defendants' news release published on 20th March 1996 was 'merely a further shot in the battle' which 'did nothing new
19 MR. RAMPTON: Well, I beg to differ, my Lord. It is perfectly
[15] (Pages 1036 to 1039)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT attacked by the claimant. That gives the audience for the reply to the attack a proper interest in hearing what the defendant has to say in response to it. That reciprocity of interest has gone once the audience has heard what the defendant says in reply to the attack. That is what is being said here. There is no further privilege once you have had your say. If you go beyond that, then, as Eady J put it in the Blackwell case, you are "just having a go". Privilege is not, if I may respectfully say so, a cloak which the court will lightly use to cover and excuse defamatory statements of fact. I will show your Lordship the relevant law in a moment. It is called privilege because it is an exemption or exception from the normal rule that a defamatory statement of fact, a fortiori if it is a serious one, a defamatory statement of fact must be proved to be true if there is to be a defence. Once the defendant has given his honest response to what has been said about him, there is no further interest either in the audience or, more particularly, because it is a public interest defence, or in the public interest for further defamatory responses to be given; the more so, of course, if those responses tip over from response into gratuitous attack -- which is what we say has also happened in this case. It is a very basic piece of law. The Supreme Court of Western Australia did not need authority for the proposition that the
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT quite stringent conditions which attach to it. I do not know why it was not raised in this case, but I can have a pretty good guess. Anyway, it has not been raised. This is not a Reynolds case. This is a case governed by the old common law of privilege. Can I start, please, at page 201. I am only going to read three fairly short paragraphs. This is the leading judgment by Lord Nicholls -- his speech, I should have said. We were still in the House of Lords in those days. This was actually decided in 1999, but not reported until 2001. At the top of page 201, Lord Nicholls says this: "Reputation is an integral and important part of the dignity of the individual. It also forms the basis of many decisions in a democratic society which are fundamental to its well being -- whom to employ or work for, whom to promote, whom to do business with or vote for. Once besmirched by an unfounded allegation in a national newspaper" -- or, one might say, on a website -- "a reputation can be damaged forever, especially if there is no opportunity to vindicate one's reputation. When this happens, society as well as the individual is the loser, for it should not be supposed that protection of reputation is a matter of importance only to the affected individual and his family. Protection of reputation is conducive to the public good. It is in the public interest that the reputation of public
[Page 1041]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
[Page 1043]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT reciprocity of interest, by the time of the second or third defamatory response, had evaporated. The battery had been used up; the occasion was exhausted. My Lord, this is an earnest question of law and a very important one, and I will, if I may, take your Lordship once again to yet another piece of loose paper -- more than one piece of paper. Fortunately, the House of Lords, even though -- in this case it had seven judges, I think. It is an important case. Would your Lordship like the paper clip, or not? MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Not. MR. RAMPTON: This case does not need rehearsal on its facts; it is very well known. I cite it merely for illustration of the guiding principles. This case, Reynolds, established a defence for publication to the world at large. As your Lordship knows, it is sometimes called Reynolds Privilege; it is the privilege in the sense that the defendant is not required to prove the truth of the words complained of in order for the defence to succeed. After that, it has very few similarities with the ordinary conventional form of duty and interest, corresponding duty and interest privilege, reciprocity privilege. I do not cite it for that reason. Mr. Price mentioned it in passing as though he had raised the Reynolds defence in this case. He has not done so. There are
CLOSING - CLAIMANT figures" -- of course, Mr. Mengi is one of those in Tanzania -- "should not be debased falsely. In the political field, in order to make an informed choice, the electorate needs to be able to identify the good as well as the bad. Consistently with these considerations, human rights conventions recognise that freedom of expression is not an absolute right. Its exercise may be subject to such restrictions as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation of others." If your Lordship would please turn to page 238, in the speech of Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, at the top of the page, in similar vein but putting it in a rather different way and, so far as this case is concerned, just as important a way: "The liberty to communicate and receive information has a similar place in a free society, but it is important always to remember that it is the communication of information, not misinformation, which is the subject of this liberty. There is no human right to disseminate information that is not true. No public interest is served by publishing or communicating misinformation. The working of a democratic society depends on the members of that society being informed, not misinformed. Misleading people and the purveying as facts statements which are not true is destructive of the democratic
[16] (Pages 1040 to 1043)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT society and should form no part of such society. There is no duty to publish what is not true. There is no interest in being misinformed. These are general propositions going far beyond the mere protection of reputations. The law of civil defamation is directly concerned with the private law right not to be unjustly deprived of one's reputation and recognises the defence of privilege." I complete this little exercise by drawing your Lordship's attention to what is meant, in a case such as this, by the law of privilege. May I start, please, at the bottom of page 194, just below letter F. "Over the years the courts have held that many common form situations are privileged. Classic instances are in prime references and complaints made or information given to the police or appropriate authorities regarding suspected crimes ... (read to the words) .... the underlying principle is conventionally stated in words to the effect that there must exist between the maker of the statement and the recipient some duty or interest in the making of the communication. Lord Atkins' dictum in Adam v. Ward is much quoted: 'A privileged occasion is an occasion where the person who makes the communication has an interest or duty, legal, social or moral, to make it to the person to whom it is made, and the person to whom it is made has a corresponding interest or duty to receive it. This
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23
CLOSING - CLAIMANT interest or a duty, legal, social or moral, to make it to the person to whom it is made, and the person to whom it is so made has a corresponding interest or duty to receive it." It can be either. You can have a duty to communicate with the person who has an interest, a proper interest -- I do not mean an idle interest, I do not mean interest in the sense that one is interested in the affairs of Leeds United or Tottenham Hotspur -- a proper interest, somebody whose interest is affected by what is said, somebody who can do something about it; that is what is meant in this context by "an interest"; and you can have an interest, a proper interest, to protect yourself against a defamatory attack, in just the same way, and the people who have an interest in receiving that response to attack are the people who received the original attack. That is reply to attack form. Those are both interests -whereas there may be a duty in a citizen, for example, to report a suspected crime to the police, who have an interest to receive it. That form of privilege is now absolute, but at this time it was qualified. present case. You have referred to Lord Atkinson in Adam v. Ward. Adam v. Ward is a reply to attack.
21 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: I do not understand how one applies this to the
24 MR. RAMPTON: Yes. 25 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: The original attack is made under absolutely
[Page 1045]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 24 25
[Page 1047]
1 2 3
CLOSING - CLAIMANT reciprocity is essential.'" Mr. Price accuses me of living in the 19th Century. That is today's law, my Lord. I can read on, at the top of page 195: "The requirement that both maker of the statement and the recipient must have an interest or duty draws attention to the need to have regard to the position of both parties when deciding whether an occasion is privileged. This should not be allowed to obscure the rationale of the underlying public interest on which privilege is founded. The essence of this defence lies in the law's recognition of the need" -- I emphasise the word "need" -- "in the public interest for a particular recipient to receive frank and uninhibited communication of particular information from a particular source. That is the end the law is concerned to attain. The protection afforded to the maker of the statement is the means by the which the law seeks to achieve that end. Thus, the court has to assess whether in the public interest the publication should be protected in the absence of malice." privilege. reply to attack. I read what Lord Atkinson said in Adam v. Ward again: "A person who makes a communication has an
CLOSING - CLAIMANT privileged conditions, in the House of Commons. So, the response is in a letter to The Times.
4 MR. RAMPTON: Yes. 5 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: So, it is read by all readers of The Times. 6 MR. RAMPTON: Yes. 7 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: So, the writer of the letter to The Times has 8 9 10 12 14 15 16
an interest or legal, social or moral duty to publish his uncomplimentary remarks about the plaintiff to every reader of The Times. and that is a public proceeding. facts of the present case. The attack complained of by Miss Hermitage and Mr. Middleton, a series of attacks, is made in the columns of the Guardian and Nipashe.
11 MR. RAMPTON: Because the original attack was made in Parliament 13 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. Well now, supposing we apply this to the
17 MR. RAMPTON: Yes. 18 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: To whom can they properly publish a reply to 19 21 22 23 25
attack, within the privilege? provided that they confine themselves, within reason, to responding to the attack and provided they do it no more often than is necessary to constitute that response. the paragraph at the top of 195 has to do with reply to
20 MR. RAMPTON: If we are talking about reply to attack, yes,
21 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: This is the common duty heading of qualified 23 MR. RAMPTON: It is both. Common interest or duty will do; hence
24 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: I understand that. But I could not see what
[17] (Pages 1044 to 1047)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT attack. Perhaps it does not. MR. RAMPTON: It does. Of course it does. There is a particular need, in Lord Nicholls' words, there is a particular need, when such an attack is made publicly, in the public interest, to provide that the victim of the attack can give his particular account of his response to the particular audience who received the original attack. Now, it may be the public at large. Very often it will not be; it will be something said at a meeting, in which case the victim of the attack has the privilege to respond to those who heard what was originally said at the meeting. It is a perfect fit with what Lord Nicholls says at the top of page 195: there is a public interest in giving people the opportunity to respond to attack, but within reason; they must enlarge neither the constituency nor the arena. I read that because it underlies also what I propose to say about the other limb of privilege, which is that there is some kind of common corresponding interest -- leaving aside reply to attack -- otherwise one not need the alternative form of defence in this case. If reply to attack was all, then I could leave that now. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Are we finished with reply to attack? MR. RAMPTON: I think I have. Yes, I am told I have. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Right.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT which particular article or articles was that posting of 31st January a response: "Corrupt intimidation so as to grab the property"? As I say, that can be applied to every single one of the website publications. Equally, does it apply to the e-mails? What possible response could all those Bishops, the Air Service and the Medical Centre in Tanzania be expecting? In 2010, were they walking around saying to themselves, "Oh, well, I remember those articles from long ago that used at one time to be on the IPP website, perhaps. This is just what I wanted to hear from Miss Hermitage. I wanted to hear that Mr. Mengi was" -- what are the words in the Lutheran e-mail? This is 162, bundle 2.1. It is a fictitious headline. "Oh yes, I always wanted to know what her response was. I find it helps me to understand her position to know that Mr. Mengi is the Lutheran Church Leader or Elder in Tanzania who intimidates British investors in order to grab their property." I am almost inclined to say: "Reply to attack, phooey". Well, I have said it now. That sort of template, that same test, what interest did the recipients of these e-mails have in hearing this as a reply to an attack, the answer is: none. It can be applied to all the website publications and also to both the e-mails. They were not getting reply to attack. What they were getting was freestanding, gratuitous, spontaneous, if you like,
[Page 1049]
1 3 4
[Page 1051]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10
CLOSING - CLAIMANT slavishly reading through my written argument, it does not mean that I have abandoned it.
CLOSING - CLAIMANT spontaneous attacks on Mr. Mengi's reputation, accusing him of telling lies and of corrupt intimidation. That is not, with respect, much of a reply to articles which plainly were unfair to them in the context of the Benjamin Mengi dispute, the Silverdale Farm dispute. My Lord, I will now go on to what I call ordinary privilege. I could start now or I could start at two o'clock. attack to other forms of privilege ----
2 MR. RAMPTON: Well, you never know. I mean, just because I am not
5 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Of course not, Mr. Rampton. 6 MR. RAMPTON: I know. That was slightly frivolous, because it is 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
nearly one o'clock. I do urge your Lordship, please, to take full account of what we have written on the facts of this case in the argument. It runs from paragraph 57 on page 20 to the end of paragraph 73 on page 25. Perhaps one could say this. Each of the publications must be considered in the light of the defence which is raised. Each one must be considered with the question in mind: is what was here published, truly speaking, a response to an attack; was it a freestanding additional attack; to what attack was it a response -- in every single case. There were five website publications and two e-mail publications, and the question must be answered in relation to every single one of those publications, because every one of those is a cause of action, which is why it has taken us several paragraphs to answer the question that they are not privileged. If one takes, for example -- and this is an example; I have chosen, as one is apt to do, perhaps the most obvious -- the posting of 31st January 2010. To what kind of an attack in Mr. Mengi's papers -- and that is all we are concerned with at this stage -- to what kind of attack,
9 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: I think if you are moving on from reply to 11 MR. RAMPTON: I am. 12 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: -- that is a suitable moment to pause. 13 14 16 17
Two o'clock. (Adjourned for a short time) as a defence in this case, I would ask your Lordship to look at two passages in the transcript.
15 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, just before I finally leave reply to attack
18 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. 19 MR. RAMPTON: Not necessarily conclusive or decisive of the 20 21 22
question, which ultimately is an objective question for the court. This is Ms. Hermitage's evidence about what she was using the blog for. My Lord, day 6, page 756.
23 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. 24 MR. RAMPTON: I was asking her about that undoubtedly 25
provocative -- if that is not too neutral a word -- article
[18] (Pages 1048 to 1051)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT in, I think it is Nipashe, but also the Guardian about the Habib assault on 3rd February 2007. She had reprinted that article on her website because it was not available on the IPP website any longer. That is the evidence of Mr. Lema, inferences that she could not get her readers to see what it said unless she reprinted it, so she did. She says, "Why not reprint it?" I asked, "(Q) What is the purpose of reprinting an article to which you take objection? (A) So that the people reading the website can see what was written. (Q) Yes, just in case they could not remember it from three years earlier. Is that right? (A) You know, Mr. Rampton, I am not trying to be difficult; I do not know who has read it or what they thought when they did. I have put an article on to my blog which gives the accusations, which you rightly point out, and reproduces the article published. I just do not see why that would be inconsistent with a blog. (Q) It is not inconsistent with a blog. It is, perhaps, inconsistent with a reply to attack that took place three years earlier? (A) Well, I was not thinking of any kind of reply to attack. At I was doing was highlighting what it says." Then I follow that up on page 775, I think it is, with this -- in the second quarter or third quarter of 775, line
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT second volume, but your Lordship may not ---MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. Which tab? MR. RAMPTON: Tab 24. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. MR. RAMPTON: I will spend some time on this case because it is an important case. It is a very modern case. It was decided this year, in February. It sets out what we believe is a very clear illustration of the strict nature of the defence and the strict nature of the defence and the strict nature of the interest which has to lie in the publishees or the duty, as the case might be, if the publication is to be protected. It also shows that burden is on the defendant to demonstrate that legitimate or proper interest. I will read the headnote, if I may, or some of it. The claimant and the defendant ... (reads to the (words) .... in the profession...." I ask your Lordship to note that they were involved in the profession of interpreter. "...which accused the claimant ... (reads to the words) .... acting on malice." I will jump the next holding. "On appeal, the defendant argued ... (reads to the words) .... might be relevant...." and so on and so forth. I do not trouble with that. Holding 10, top of the next page, "In the incident case ... (reads to the words) .... in the discharge of her office."
[Page 1053]
1 2 3 4
[Page 1055]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT 16, I put it to her: "(Q) You repeatedly rake over old coals. You use one article after another as a platform for accusing MR. Mengi of lying, do you not? (A) Yes."
5 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes, well, she plainly does. 6 MR. RAMPTON: Yes. However, in relation to the defence of 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
response to attack, that answer may have some significance. They both do. My Lord, before the adjournment I read your Lordship that pithy account of the nature of qualified privilege of common law from the judgment of the speech of Lord Nicholls in Reynolds at page 195. I follow that up, if I may, just to show quite how confined the defence is. It is not a floppy cloak which one can throw over any old article or publication way might be thought to be of some interest to some readers. It is strictly confined. The burden is on the defendant to show that the publication was made to people who had a proper, recognised -I mean recognised by law -- a proper recognised duty or interest to receive the communication. The case that I wish your Lordship to look at, please, is called Cambridge v Makin. It is at tab 24 of the authorities.
24 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Just give me a moment, Mr. Rampton. 25 MR. RAMPTON: Sorry. I have two volumes and in mine it is in the
CLOSING - CLAIMANT My Lord, I pause there for this reason: what is perfectly apparent from that (and from the judgments that follow) is that the burden is on the defendant to identify persons or groups of persons who received the words complained of, who had a legitimate or proper interest or duty to receive those words, that even an interest of the surprisingly high quality of the two second groups of publishees did not qualify. They did not have a sufficient interest in the content of the defamatory e-mail, despite the fact that they were quite likely to be affected by the underlying issues at the AGM, the vote of no confidence. It is also right, of course, because these had been e-mails, that they had been able, both sides had been able to identify who the publishee's were so that one could see whether or not those publishees or groups of publishees had the requisite interest in receiving the words complained of. I go to paragraph 6, if I may, on paragraph 37: "In March 2007, the defendant and others ... (reads to the words).... in support of the motion. This was the judgment, I think, of the court, delivered by Tomlinson LJ. "Critically, however ... (reads to the words) .... conflict of interest...." and so on and so forth. Then if I may turn forward quite a long way, paragraph 32 on page 37 -- I note this in passing: "The
[19] (Pages 1052 to 1055)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
1 2 3 4
CLOSING - CLAIMANT e-mail was sent to ... (reads to the words) .... three classes" and then the court sets out what those three classes are, which your Lordship knows from having read the headnote.
1 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11
CLOSING - CLAIMANT understand computers, it is always impossible to know who visits your website. Therefore, the publisher of any defamatory blog cannot rely on this form of privilege because it will always be impossible to show who read the words complained of. Lordship. In the case of Hewitt v Grunwald and in the case of the Specialist Publication of the British Dental Journal. It is not so.
2 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Since it is impossible for anybody, as I
5 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. 6 MR. RAMPTON: Paragraph 36, having gone through the considerations 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
as it were, the court says this: "The short point is ... (reads to the words) ....a step change therein." I pause to observe that perhaps that has some echo of the facts in this case. A slow start, a rising crescendo and a thundering (inaudible) in this particular case. Abuse of position for gain, ... (reads to the words).... that had gone before." A promise forgotten, a promise not kept, a promise broken, a lie, a concerted campaign of intimidation, a corrupt and concerted campaign of intimidation to oust the Middletons from their farm. There are echos, as I say, in this case. "The publishees were fellow members of the claimant's profession." Where, I ask rhetorically, does Ms. Hermitage, or Mr. Middleton, for that matter, as she is entitled speak for him, where do they have any fellow sufferers in the Silverdale Farm dispute? Where are the people interested in that sense. Do other people have interests in the property? Where are the people who would have the same sort of interests as the members of this association entitled to vote at the AGM?
8 MR. RAMPTON: Not so, my Lord, as I shall shortly show your
12 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Right. 13 MR. RAMPTON: One can show a group, -- even if you do not know 14 15 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25
their names -- a group of properly interested recipients in the proper case. you can show who might be the readers of the website with an interest falling within qualified privilege, but you must show that somebody nobody else looked at the website, otherwise the privilege is lost. identifiable group of interested publishees. Once that has happened, if you are not named, which the claimants were not in Hewitt v Grunwald, then you must show that outside that group there were persons who did not have that interest who
16 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: However, I think you are saying not just that
21 MR. RAMPTON: It goes the other way. You first must show an
[Page 1057]
1 3 4 6 8 9 11 12 13
[Page 1059]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT question, Mr. Rampton. Is it only people with an interest in Silverdale and Mbono Farms and nobody else? local police. case. Publication to anybody else. Why did you not have this case struck out 2 million ago, Mr. Rampton? it is, a defence of qualified privilege has to be met. There is no evidence about the identity of the publishees of the website.
CLOSING - CLAIMANT understood the words to refer to you, if you are the claimant. The primary burden in a case of qualified privilege is on the defendant to show a group, even if they are not named, an identifiable group of interested persons having the kind of interest which the Court of Appeal is speaking of in this case. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Right. MR. RAMPTON: A website, as your Lordship rightly observed, does not have that facility. It does not. The defendant's task can be achieved if it is a directly targeted or aimed website, as it was in Hewitt v Grunwald, which we will come to in a moment. It can have that quality. As Mr. Justice Eady observed in that case and, also, in the Yiamouyianis case, which is a British Dental Journal, there will be some, what we might call spillage over the borders of that group which, if it is not excessive, can be regarded as a reasonable incident of reaching the big group who do have the interest. In other words, if somebody picks up a copy of a journal a library or in a railway station or if somebody happens to glance at the website who is not interested, that will not spoil the privilege provided there is an identifiable group of persons, either by name or by description, who do have proper interest.
2 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Well, you give me the answer to your rhetorical
5 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, broadly speaking. Either that or maybe the 7 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: If you are right, again, that is the end of the
10 MR. RAMPTON: I do not have -- well, it has not struck out. Here
14 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: No, of course not. How could there be? 15 MR. RAMPTON: Exactly, that burden is not on me, that burden is on 16 17 19
the defendant. If she asserts qualified privilege, she must show persons with the proper interest. Right.
18 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: She must show persons have a proper interest. 20 MR. RAMPTON: As in ---21 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Also, they are limited to a) persons with an 22 24 25
interest in the land, b) the Tanzanian police -- anybody else? know who read the website. Those are the examples of the sort of people who would have the proper interest.
23 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, there may well be other categories. I do not
[20] (Pages 1056 to 1059)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT That would have applied here in this Cambridge case. If the publication had been put on a website directed at people interested in the profession and it had been read partly by people who are voting or entitled to vote on the AGM, but partly, also, by large numbers of people who were not, the defence would have failed because there would have been an excessive publication to uninterested persons, which is exactly what happened by e-mail in this case. As it was by e-mail, the actual names and addresses of the publishees was known, but precisely the same considerations apply to a website. This is the Silverdale Farm website. One has no idea who might have read that. Somebody might, for example, as your Lordship observed the other day, at some time in the past Googled Reginald Mengi and come up with all this stuff. No interest in it at all, apart from idle curiosity and a bit of prurient interest. No interest at all. There this there is no Reynolds defence. This is publication to the world at large without the necessary Reynolds protection. What is pleaded is common or garden common law interest of precisely the kind that was pleaded in Cambridge. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. Well, in the case of the publication in Cambridge and Makin, the class of the people who were within
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT complaint to the proper authorities -- I do not know if there is a Newspaper Complainants Commission in Tanzania, but a complaint about the content of his newspapers to the extent that he is responsible for them would be privileged. Yes, of course it would. However, this is broadcast to the world at large. We do not know who read it. then. Hewitt v Grunwald. if I may, to this question of the pre-existing relationship; for example, as between the Bar Council and members of the Bar or between the Law Society and members of the solicitors' profession, between shareholders and each other or between shareholders and the Board. That sort of pre-existing relationship, there is what we call in those cases, provided the subject matter is of the right quality, an off-the-peg common law privilege. It is an automatic relationship that only has to be stated for the corresponding duties and interests to be obvious. This is not that case. Ms. Hermitage has no relationship that anybody knows of (and if she had, she would have to prove it), with any of her publishees. There is no pre-existing relationship. She has no relationship with the Lutheran church, she has no relation with the African Media
8 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: No. All right. Shall we look at the cases 10 MR. RAMPTON: I can move on now. I want to draw your attention,
[Page 1061]
1 2 3 4
[Page 1063]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT the privilege -- sorry, the class of addressees who were within the defendant's privilege were members of the Association.
5 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, they were. That is why they were entitled ---6 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Who, if anyone, is the equivalent class in 7
respect of Mr. Mengi? I think you will say there is not one.
8 MR. RAMPTON: In respect of Mr. Mengi? 9 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes, there is nobody. 10 MR. RAMPTON: Probably very few people. Yes, I would think that 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 22 23 24 25
is probably right. This is not an appropriate case for qualified privacy. Of course, if Mr. Mengi were proposing to do a particular transaction in business with somebody and somebody else who knew both parties said, "I would not touch him with a barge pole", although that person would be a volunteer, it is plain that his interlocutor, the recipient of that information, would have a proper interest. references and so on, but yes. which Mr. Reginald Mengi will find himself, in the course of his life, in which it would be possible to make defamatory remarks about him which were privileged. Of course it would. A complaint to the police about him would be privileged. A
19 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Well, then we are in difficulties about 21 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, there might be. There are many situations in
CLOSING - CLAIMANT Initiative, Mr. Barr. None at all. She is a volunteer, pure and simple. May I read from my own book? It is embarrassing, but I will do, if you do not mind, at paragraph 39. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Duncan v Neill? MR. RAMPTON: No, it is in Court of Appeal. I feel slightly less embarrassed about it. Paragraph 38. The court cites paragraph 16-05 and Duncan v Neill. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Hewitt v Grimwald? MR. RAMPTON: No, this is just general statement about the significance of a pre-existing relationship. Perhaps I need not bother. What it does say thought, the quote from Duncan & Neill at 16-12, says, "With one exception ... (reads to the words) .... to receive it." Then there is the famous, it is a different quote from Lord Attkinson, "While on the question of malice ... (reads to the words) .... was or was not privileged." Then over the page, "In assessing whether ... (reads to the words) .... the publication is protected." One essential critical fact that is missing in relation to these website publications is the identity of the publishees. I can say, "Yes, I agree, I volunteered as a member of the public. I volunteered this complaint to the Law Society or its modern equivalent, the Solicitors' Regulation
[21] (Pages 1060 to 1063)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 have a relationship with the Law Society because I am not a 4 solicitor, not a pre-existing one, but I am a client and, 5 therefore, I am entitled to make the complaint." That was a 6 case called Lincoln & Daniel, so that was a complaint to the 7 Bar Council, in fact. 8 Here, there is nothing of that kind. There is a 9 speculative claim that some readers of the Silverdale dispute 10 website may have been interested, or might have been 11 interested in what I call the newspaper's sense of interested. 12 It is an interesting story and it is, in some ways, a very 13 moving story. That does not give them an interest of the 14 requisite quality. There is nothing they can do about it. 15 They can stop buying Mr. Mengi's newspapers, but that is about 16 all. They have no function to perform. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Surely the thesis of Ms. Hermitage's website, 17 18 rightly or wrongly, is that anybody who invests in Tanzania is 19 out of their mind and that the government is out of their mind 20 in maintaining the level of overseas aid to Tanzania. 21 MR. RAMPTON: That is one of the theses, but that does not give 22 her a privilege to blacken Mr. Mengi's name in front of the 23 whole world. That is addressed to the British government and 24 she has gone that and good luck to her. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: So it must follow that any website publication 25
Authority, but I had a proper interest to do so and I do not
CLOSING - CLAIMANT
CLOSING - CLAIMANT MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Right, let us look at Hewitt v Grunwald. MR. RAMPTON: I am just going to, if I may, see if there is anything else. The Court of Appeal, at paragraph 46, cites, not with approval because the Court of Appeal cannot approve what the House of Lords has said, but cites that passage ---MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Paragraph 46? MR. RAMPTON: 46. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Of what? MR. RAMPTON: Sorry, I am still in the Cambridge case. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Right. MR. RAMPTON: I said I wanted to have a proper look at it. Paragraph 46. I notice in passing that the Court of Appeal cites that passage from Lord Nicholl's speech in Reynolds that I read to your Lordship this morning, in intents, under 46, and then an important paragraph at page 50. This really encapsulates, I think, everything that I have been saying. "Were there then in the present case ... (reads to the words) .... is relevant to it." We do not have any established relationships at all in this case, my Lord. None. Not a single one. Therefore, the next step, whether or not the publications were relevant to that established relationship does not arise. "The appellant pointed ... (reads to the words) .... in the public service." That, if I may say so, gets a jolly
[Page 1065]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
[Page 1067]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
CLOSING - CLAIMANT making defamatory statements about somebody cannot be privileged. MR. RAMPTON: No, it does not follow. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Why does it not follow? MR. RAMPTON: As you can target a group, as the Board of Deputies did in the Hewitt v Grunwald case. That group, that publication, I will show it to your Lordship in a minute -- your Lordship looks incredulous, but it is the law. You can target a particular group on a website and such other people, very few no doubt, who happen to pick up, who are not interested, are what are called ancillary or incidental publishees. If you want to persuade the British government not to invest in Tanzania, a website is not the way to do it, or an investor. Telling the world about matters of public interest in this sense, which was not protected in the old days, is the reason why the Reynolds defence was constructed. Reynolds defence is not confined to the media. Any individual who publishes to the world at large may avail him or herself of it. It has not been raised in this case. It could have been and your Lordship would have been trying a different case if it had been. This is strict common law qualified privilege and the defendant must show an interest of the requisite quality before that defence can succeed.
CLOSING - CLAIMANT sight closer to a proper interest than anything in this case. "That might, as Mr. Bennett pointed out ... (reads to the words) .... of her office." My Lord, that fits this case precisely. "The simple fact that the other recipients ... (reads to the words) .... Public Service Interpreting. This liable concerns Mr. Mengi's personal integrity at the highest way possible level in several ways. There is not a single shred of evidence from which the court can tell who it was that got that choice message from Ms. Hermitage, apart from some Tanzanian Bishops, but so far as the website is concerned, there is no evidence at all. It could be anybody. I think I can leave that case then and pass on. I am going to do two more cases, if I may? One is Hewitt v Grunwald and the other one is Yiamouyianis v The British Dental Association. The first actually in time is Yiamouyianis and it is not a website, it is a specialist publication, so it may b,e to be modernist about it, one should do the Yiamouyianis case first.
20 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Right. Tab 11. 21 MR. RAMPTON: It is not a 19th Century case either. It is a 22 23
little older than some of the ones we have been looking at, but it is date is ----
24 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: It had you in it, I see, Mr. Rampton. 25 MR. RAMPTON: Some of these do. That is inevitable after 47 years
[22] (Pages 1064 to 1067)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
1 2
CLOSING - CLAIMANT doing this job; it is going to happen.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
3 MR. PRICE: That would suggest it was a 19th Century case. 4 MR. RAMPTON: No, but were you suggesting my propositions were 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
19th Century and I beg to differ. Some of the propositions which I make in this case also found their way into Yiamouyianis. Yes, I was in Hewitt v Grunwald as well. I cannot help that. I do not cite it for my participation, I cite it for the wisdom of the judge's words. I will start at the beginning, if I may? "The plaintiff ... (reads to the words)..... 1995." I am going to read all this, my Lord, so that your Lordship knows who the personal were, who the recipients of the liable were, who the publishers were and what the subject matters was because in the case of qualified privilege, those three consideration are absolutely critical. "The writ was issued ... (reads to the words) .... and that was an appeal against that order." I can pass on to page 2, where it is worth observing, at the bottom of page 1 and top of page 2, who the learned authors of this piece were. Some of them are clinicians and some were medical journalists. It was one of these joint papers. It was not a medical paper, a scientific paper, it was a commentary about the quality of Mr. Yiamouyianis' work and the public stance which he had taken on it.
CLOSING - CLAIMANT Line 10, I think it is. It has been blotted out, but it is between 9 and 11, so I infer it is line 10: "I turn then ... (reads to the words) .... of the occasion." Sometimes, my Lord, things can be of such urgency and pressing public interest that notwithstanding that the person who publishes is not in a sense connected to the publishee, he will have a duty as a matter of urgency in the public interest to make the communication. An obvious example is somebody who cries "Stop, thief." He does so because he has an urgent need to draw attention to the fact that there is a suspected thief taking his belongings, although he has no direct and obvious, immediate foregoing connection with the people who heard what he said. "In order to determine the question ... (reads to the words) .... national daily newspaper is...." and I would add or a website on the internet is. One has to bear that in mind when considering the principles to which reference was made in the case of (inaudible) Then I cite a couple of American cases, of which the judge says, "But in my judgment .... (reads to the words) .... not be available." I pause there to note that all that is based upon the premise that an identifiable group, either of named persons or otherwise, who do have the requisite interest has been put
[Page 1069]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
[Page 1071]
CLOSING - CLAIMANT before the court by the defendant. Dental healthcare professionals, yes; casual passers-by in a library, no. The question is how excessive is it? "Mr. Rampton was particularly ... (reads to the words) .... or ancillary publication." I start in the same place: you must have a basic or the core publication which is privileged before ever questions of incidental or ancillary publication can arise. "It seems seems to me ... (reads to the words) .... scientific methodology." The bottom of the page, my Lord, line 26, "Of course, if they have got it wrong ... (reads to the words) .... so he allowed the appeal." There we have -- I am going to come back to the same proposition in Hewitt v Grunwald -- there we have a well-defined, as in Cambridge, a well-defined group of -people. Their names are not known, of course they are not. There were something like 15,000 of them -- a well-defined group of publishees who had, without a shadow of a doubt, the proper or legitimate interest in what they were being told by the defendant. That is the starting point. If the defendant cannot get to the starting point, the defence of qualified privilege cannot get off the ground absent a Reynolds defence or publication to the world at large in the public interest
1 2 the fluoridation of water was dangerous and should be 3 discouraged, partly because it was likely to give people 4 cancer. The British Dental Journal then published an article, 5 making it clear that they disagreed with that stance and, in 6 effect, castigating Mr. Yiamouyianis for being a quack, so he 7 sued them. 8 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. 9 MR. RAMPTON: Mr. Yiamouyianis was a chemist, I think, as far as I 10 remember. Can I go to page 9, please, line 15? This is 11 important, my Lord, this division of the readership: "There 12 was at some stage some degree ---13 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Sorry, are you ---14 MR. RAMPTON: Are you reading the words, the introduction. 15 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes, I have it. Thank you. 16 MR. RAMPTON: Line 15, on page 9, "There was at some 17 stage ... (reads to the words) .... advanced on qualified 18 privilege." 19 Then there is consideration of the plea of 20 justification, which is attacked by the claimant and the judge 21 comes back to qualified privilege on page 27. We just about 22 survived the attack on the justification. I regret to say 23 that the case settled before trial, so I cannot tell your 24 Lordship in the end what the outcome was. 25
He had reached the conclusion, for better or worse, that
CLOSING - CLAIMANT
[23] (Pages 1068 to 1071)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT coupled with responsible journalism. That is the only way round it. You have to be able to tell the court who you are aiming at and to be able to show the court that maybe with one or two exceptions, as in that case and as you will see in a moment, my Lord, in Hewitt, with the exception of, perhaps, a few incidental and ancillary publications which do not fall within the core group. As again in Cambridge, people who certainly had interests in the affairs of the association, but did not have the direct and legitimate interest in what was being said about the claimant in that case. They were all interpreter professionals. Nonetheless, it was not good enough. Here we have nobody. My Lord Hewitt v Grunwald, this was a case of, in some senses, considerable importance. Again, it never got to trial, so it died the death after this hearing before Mr. Justice Eady in 2004. The claimant's were the trustees. They were not named in the words complained of, but they were the trustees of a charity called Interpal, which purported to ship funds out for the relief of poverty and for education in Palestine, as they called it, including in particular the Gaza Strip, which is everybody knows (and as we were able to show in this case) is the stamping ground of Hamas.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT Charter states, judgment day will not come until Muslims fight the Jews ....(reads to the words).... would tend to suggest that no such clearcut distinction can really be made." This is an understatement if ever I saw it. Then at paragraph 35: "It will be remembered that the words complained of made reference to jeopardising the Middle East peace process ....(reads to the words).... know better than to consent to having their future rights and fate toyed with." I think that is enough of the flavour of what it was that the Board of Deputies had in mind when they sought to warn Jews about the funneling of funds by Interpal to Hamas. Qualified privilege, my Lord, starts at paragraph 69: "I must next turn to the criticisms made of the pleading in relation to qualified privilege ....(reads to the words).... in the subject of Hamas terrorist activities, if such they be, and in steps taken to reduce its flow of funds." Then there was a consideration of terrorist designation by various governments. Paragraph 72 I read on, if I may, it is the last page: "Attention was focused on the issue of whether communication of the offending material by way of the worldwide web ....(reads to the words).... having regard to the interest sought to be protected," which the learned judge has already identified. "My attention was drawn to...." Your
[Page 1073]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
[Page 1075]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
CLOSING - CLAIMANT The allegation of which complaint was made -- the defendants, my Lord, were the Board of Deputies of British Jews who maintained a website and on their website they put the words which your Lordship will see, amongst others I think, in paragraph 7 of this judgment. I will introduce this at paragraph 4, on the first page: "As to qualified privilege the case is founded essentially upon a relationship between the Board and the Jewish community in this jurisdiction ....(reads to the words).... in particular those perpetrated on Jews." Paragraph 7: "The first of the two website postings contained the following words ....(reads to the words).... Interpal." Interpal's trustees, as I have said, are the claimants. "The third paragraph included these words, 'funds raised by organisations ....(reads to the words).... for the funding of such terrorist organisations." When I say that it was a serious case there was a lengthy plea of justification, that does not matter for present purposes, but I do invite your Lordship to the seriousness of the issue which was addressed by the Board of Deputies' website aimed, obviously, targeted at Jews in this country. Could I ask your Lordship to look at paragraph 30, this is part of the plea of justification: "Article 7 of Hamas
CLOSING - CLAIMANT Lordship has that case. "I am quite satisfied at this stage ....(reads to the words).... persons outside the scope of the common and corresponding interest," that is to say, people outside the Jewish community in this country, which had already been identified as the core or target group of publishees of this website, "have read the words complained of and construed them as referring to the relevant claimant." We do not have to undertake that task in this case, my Lord. First of all, Mr. Mengi is named, obviously, but second, there is no core or target group of interested publishees in this case so far as Miss Hermitage's website is concerned. It is the whole world and his wife. How many of them I do not know. Nobody does. She has the burden of establishing reciprocity of duty or interest.
16 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: You have said that, Mr. Rampton. 17 MR. RAMPTON: I know. Here is a website publication in which 18 20 21 23 24 25
that was done. more targeted at a core group of recipients than the Silverdale Farm blogs. group of people in this country that had the kind of interest which his Lordship described in this case. There is no such group in this case that I know of.
19 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: You say that the Board of Deputies' website is
22 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, of course it was. It was aimed at a specific
[24] (Pages 1072 to 1075)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
CLOSING - CLAIMANT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
CLOSING - CLAIMANT majority of visitors to the Board of Deputies' website were Jewish? If anybody else, it would just be of prurient interest? MR. RAMPTON: No, it would not. The case had got far enough on Eady J's findings for him to assume that the majority of people, because it was a targeted website, who read it would have been British Jews. Now, whether he eventually would have held that there had been excessive external publication one does not know.
2 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: People interested in Silverdale Farm. 3 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, in the way as I might be interested in 4
football.
5 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. 6 MR. RAMPTON: It is a good story and it is a sad story, of 7 8 9 10 11 12
course, but then so is virtually anything in one way or another interesting to somebody. That is not what these cases are about. These cases are about protection of particular interests and performance of particular duties, particular information to particular people on particular occasions. Who are these particular people?
11 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: You just do not know. 12 MR. RAMPTON: That would have been a matter for the claimant to
13 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Right. Thank you. That is Hewitt v Grunwald. 13 14 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, it is Hewitt v Grunwald. Since it did not go 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
establish. to establish so the burden of proof would be absolutely critical. Miss Hermitage had been able to come up with an identifiable group, or groups, of persons with the requisite interest, then she might have been able to argue this was a reasonable and proportionate way of reaching those people, but there is nobody. There is speculation. The court has to have evidence.
14 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: No, it would be quite impossible for anybody 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23
to trial, we do not have the final decision on what it would have been. One can see the way Eady J was thinking at that time. It might have been that the claimants would have been able to establish that the publication was much wider than Eady J believed; I do not know. It did not happen. That is the law at the moment. If you have a website with a well-defined target group and provided you do not go much far outside that group, you may be protected. If you have no such group and you cannot identify anybody who read the words, who said, "Well, yes, that actually was very important to me, I was just about to make an investment in Tanzania and decided
17 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, and if it had been the case in this case that
24 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. 25 MR. RAMPTON: Finally, and I will not at the moment say anything
[Page 1077]
1 2 3 5
[Page 1079]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
CLOSING - CLAIMANT not to," you do not have a defence, unless you plead Reynolds, of course. make any difference, would it?
CLOSING - CLAIMANT more about the issue of damages. I say that in preparation for what I am going to do next. I will not say anything more about the issue of damages save I will come back to the emails in a minute, but I just want to say this, first of all, that in the recent case of Kearns, which is one of your Lordship's judgments, the Court of Appeal having upheld your Lordship had some interesting remarks to make about internet publication and damages. I will just pass it up for now. I am not going to read it out. I do not need to. I thought I had better put it up while I remember before I sit down. The relevant paragraphs, or paragraphs, I dare say your Lordship has already read it.
4 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: If your submissions are right, it would not 6 MR. RAMPTON: It might do. 7 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Suppose the defendants were able to produce 8 9 10
half a dozen people who say, "In the light of what I have read on the blog so far I would not contemplate going anywhere near Tanzania."
11 MR. RAMPTON: Suppose they had ---12 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: So what? You would say still that it is a non 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25
targeted website? targeted in the sense it has not a label on it. It does not have, "Look at this, all you who may be thinking of investing in Tanzania." But if there had been an identifiable group of persons at whom this had been aimed, there might have been a difficulty in showing what the proportions were between properly interested and idly interested, yes, of course, but that is the fact of every case. Here there is nothing. It is not my burden to disprove ---would have been necessary, would it, for the defendants somehow to produce evidence, not just a guess, that the vast
14 MR. RAMPTON: I would not say that. I would say it is non
14 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. 15 MR. RAMPTON: But maybe not the pages that I would focus on for 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
this purpose, paragraphs 26 and 27. The risk that people take if they put things on the internet is what this is about and that is what Miss Hermitage has done. Who knows, to use the old words of Ian Hamilton, who knows how far the poison may seep. It may have some bearing on the question of qualified privilege as well. I go back to the emails. I do not need to take your Lordship to them except to remind you of the first one, to the Tanzanian Church Leaders, the aircraft company, and the medical centre, contain that rather egregious invented
23 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: If Hewitt v Grunwald had gone to trial it
[25] (Pages 1076 to 1079)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT headline, Lutheran Church Leader Elder in Tanzania intimidates British investors in order to grab their property". My question is the same one, we know who the publishees are, or most of them, from Bishop Malasusa's witness statement. Again, I ask the question in the usual way, what need was there in the public interest for all those people to receive that and the other allegations contained in this email. Miss Hermitage, I think, said when I asked her about it, she did not even know where it was that Mr. Mengi went to church. Your Lordship observed he is a prominent Lutheran. I interposed, no, he is not a prominent Lutheran, he is a prominent Tanzanian who happens to attend a Lutheran church. Thus, let us suppose a prominent businessman in this country is accused of lying and of conducting a terrorist campaign in print against the defendant. He happens to be a member of the Church of England who attends church, say, somewhere in South London. Is the defendant on solid ground as a matter of duty or interest in telling every single Anglican Bishop in this country that that is what he has done? Is that the proper protection of an interest or the performance of the duty? What are they supposed to do about it, hold a Synod and have him strung up? It just does not run. The English law of qualified privilege simply is not a soft woolly cloak from nastiness of that kind.
1 CLOSING - CLAIMANT 2 whichever ones may be found that she is liable for, these or 3 any other similar words. That is number one. 4 Number two, suppose in some area she succeeded on 5 qualified privilege but failed on justification, then I would 6 ask your Lordship to make an injunction for the future. 7 Obviously, the prospect of damages for the publication which 8 was the subject of qualified privilege would not be on the 9 table. You cannot get damages for a protected publication but 10 for the future, if there is a finding that what has been said 11 is false, that would be quite different. 12 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Then I think I had better hear detailed 13 argument on this, Mr. Rampton, because it seems to me very 14 highly significant and cannot be left to a question of remedy; 15 either you succeed on liability or you do not, and if you do 16 succeed on liability I would like to know what injunction you 17 say would be appropriate. 18 MR. RAMPTON: If we succeed on liability, the normal form of 19 injunction would be appropriate, which is an order against the 20 repetition of these words or any similar words or words to 21 like effect. That is the normal form of injunction. I can 22 see no problem with that. How Miss Hermitage chooses to 23 comply with that injunction is her problem. 24 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: I can see enormous problems with that, 25 Mr. Rampton.
[Page 1081]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
[Page 1083]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT It is the same with the publication to Mr. Ba, who is perhaps the only one amongst all these people who might be thought to have something close to a proper interest in knowing that Mr. Mengi, who was going to co-chair the forum, was a bad egg. But what about the two Kenyan journalists, one of them had interviewed Mr. Mengi sometime in the past and another one had a business interest which was in competition with Mr. Mengi's. One might as well say that she was justified in sending it to The Times East Africa correspondent, or the BBC correspondent. That is a very clear example of the difference between what ordinary people mean when they say, "I am interested in that," and the standard of interest, the quality of interest, which our law requires before a defence of qualified privilege will stand up. That is all I believe I have to say unless Mr. Eardley tells me I have forgotten something vital. I was not going to say anything about injunctions today. It seems to me that it
CLOSING - CLAIMANT MR. RAMPTON: If I know what they are perhaps we can deal with them. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: You cannot set out seven pages of script and say you are enjoined from repeating any similar words, and it has to be much more specific than that, you have to say what it is that is untrue. Then you may be able to say that or any similar words ---MR. RAMPTON: I am sorry, I believe we are at cross-purposes, my Lord. I had envisaged that your Lordship would make findings as to meaning. Your Lordship would then make findings as to liability in relation to those meanings; in other words, in that meaning the words complained of are untrue, for example. was no promise to pay the Middletons' costs of defending the civil action brought by Benjamin, that is an easy one. You say there should be an injunction restraining you from alleging that Mr. Mengi agreed to pay costs, but in relation to the elements of participating in corrupt intimidation, what would the wording of the injunction be? Lordship's findings as to meaning in that area of the case were. I could go no further than that and I would not desire to do so. It would not mean that Miss Hermitage had to take down her website, if she did not want to. She would have to
14 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Take an easy answer, suppose I find that there
is better left. 21 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: No, I think you should, Mr. Rampton. I am 22 rather interested in what you say the terms of an injunction would be if you were to be successful. 24 MR. RAMPTON: The terms of the injunction would be that Miss 25 Hermitage was enjoined or ordered against publishing these,
23
21 MR. RAMPTON: The wording would depend entirely on what your
[26] (Pages 1080 to 1083)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT take down the bits that made the allegation, as your Lordship would have found, which is untrue. She would be restrained from repeating that allegation whatever it might be. I cannot say now what it is going to be. I have given your Lordship some help, I hope, but your Lordship is the judge of fact and will decide the meanings. Once you have decided the meanings, you will then decide whether they are true, whether the words are true in those meanings. To the extent that there are parts of them, large swathes of the website which do not say anything of the kind, they are perfectly safe. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: You said that if in respect of certain of the allegations defence of justification failed but the defence of qualified privilege under either limb in fact succeeded, that you would claim that you are entitled to an injunction against repetition. MR. RAMPTON: This may be in the law of libel at least unchartered territory. One would have to tread quite carefully but I would think the position was, I believe Mr. Price was saying he more or less agreed the other day -I do not want to put words into his mouth -- if there was a finding that the words were not true and one or more of the publications was the subject of qualified privilege, then I could not get damages for the publications which were the subject of qualified privilege. That is the first thing. For
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
CLOSING - CLAIMANT how I come at remedy, or lack of it. MR. RAMPTON: Yes. Mr. Eardley is always a step or two ahead of me, he is quite right, I would also have to have what I might call a tangible prospect of republication. If there is a finding in her favour on qualified privilege, and this applies to all injunctions, not simply -- an injunction granted at the end of a case is a quia timet injunction anyway in its effect. But I would have to say, timeo with some ground to satisfy the court that it might happen again. That is true of all injunctions.
12 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes, it is. 13 MR. RAMPTON: In many cases, in libel cases it is obvious because 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
of the possible cost involved that the defendant will not repeat it. suggestion, without authority, that if in respect of any particular allegation Miss Hermitage loses on justification but succeeds on qualified privilege, and that therefore you cannot recover damages for defamation in respect of that publication, that part of the claim fails, that you can nonetheless obtain a quia timet injunction. As I say, it seems to me on those facts the defendant would be aware that any republication or continuation on the website of that particular allegation would give rise to a claim to which
16 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. Quite. I was baulking at the
[Page 1085]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
[Page 1087]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 15 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT the publications which were neither true nor privileged, I would be entitled to the full injunction. For the publications which were privileged but not true on a finding of the court, I believe that I would be entitled to a quia timet injunction against their reputation save in so far as either Miss Hermitage came into possession of information proving it to be true in which case she could try and reopen the thing, I suppose. This is difficult because quia timet injunction is always subject to the fear there might come a time when she was compelled by law to give a response to such-and-such a crime, but that is true of all injunctions. That is an implicit restriction on the width of the injunction, I believe. In general terms, she would not be entitled to repeat those allegations which your Lordship had found to be true though privileged because to do so would be
CLOSING - CLAIMANT there could be no privilege defence because of malice. MR. RAMPTON: That is probably right. As a matter of practical reality and enforceability, it seems to me that is probably, if I may say so respectfully, the right approach. It is not real to suppose that she would repeat if it has been found to be false. As I say, except by compulsion of law the probability, overwhelming probability is it would not be repeated. If it were repeated, why then there would be a fresh action probably with a claim for exemplary damages, or something in it. I do not know. Anything else, Mr. Rampton? on damages, but it is a bit of a sideshow in some ways. one thing, that is what damages, approximately, would be payable if one viewed the High Commissioner meeting allegations in isolation? none of those promises was given, Mr. Mengi did not lie but that, broadly speaking, although the allegation of (I do not want to feed words into a judgment, not against my own client, for heaven's sake) but one can envisage a situation where you might say, it is not actually an allegation of deliberate
12 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: I could well believe it. Yes, all right. 14 MR. RAMPTON: Not that I can think of, unless you want to hear me 16 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: It is a sideshow. I would like your help on
malicious ---18 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Surely, that is the answer, that a claimant in 19 those circumstances was not entitled to an injunction on this
20 21 22 23 24 25
hypothesis. Qualified privilege has succeeded, therefore no damages and no injunction, but if the allegations which the court has held not to be true are then repeated, you, Mr. Mengi, would say that is malice. You lose your privilege because you are repeating something which you know to be untrue because the court has held it to be untrue. That is
20 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, I follow. If your Lordship were to find that
[27] (Pages 1084 to 1087)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - CLAIMANT orchestration by Mr. Mengi but he let things run on, he could have done something, so there would be a reduction in the damages. I do not believe anything of that kind would make an enormously serious reduction in the amount of damages awarded for the allegation of lying to the British Government. That is essentially a matter for your Lordship. No doubt Mr. Price would argue vigorously in the opposite way and say this is such a serious finding of bad newspaper ownership or unethical journalism that the allegation of lying is worth nothing. I would resist that. That is where section 5 comes into play. Your Lordship sitting as a jury would have to make an assessment whether having found that the allegation of lying etc. was untrue but the other one true -- put it the other way round, if your Lordship had found the journalism allegation true but the lying allegation untrue, your Lordship would have to decide whether and if so to what extent the unproved lying allegation still damaged his reputation. In my submission, it would be that there is actually quite a lot of water between them in that form. It might be different. If your Lordship found that he had as a matter of fact wilfully and malignly conducted an intimidatory campaign of corrupt journalist to get them off the land, then different considerations would apply. Trying to read your Lordship's
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
REPLY - DEFENDANT that Mr. Middleton says Mr. Mengi gave in relation to paying the costs was given when Mr. Pocock was not present. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. There was an issue. MR. PRICE: There is an issue about that; of course there is. Just one point on Nicol, which, again, I think your Lordship would have slotted into its proper place -- the evidence that Mr. Mosher, the Chairman of Nicol, is a director of Media Solutions Limited; and that, we submit, is quite important. Media Solutions Limited is a wholly owned Mengi company. Mr. Mengi's line of escape, if I may put it tendentiously in this way, from the implications of this whole episode, as regards his credibility, is, if he resigned fairly quickly when the decision to sell was not implemented, that would have given him a line of escape; but also, if he had severed relations with Mr. Mosher. Of course, he ---MR. JUSTICE BEAN: I have the point. MR. PRICE: I am sure your Lordship has. There is just one thing that I would ask your Lordship to have in mind. When publication number 5 -- which my learned friend places a great deal of weight on, because that is the one about the Mengis being involved in corruption -- if your Lordship would just look in file 1.2(B) at page 155, this is the only evidence that your Lordship has of the extent of readership or visits to the website. Number 5, "Kikwete's commitment to
[Page 1089]
1 2
[Page 1091]
1
REPLY - DEFENDANT agriculture and investment", which is the one we are looking at, the best evidence is five visits between 31st January 2010 and the date on which these figures were extracted, which was
mind, I do not think that is quite what you were thinking of. have been very helpful. Mr. Eardley?
2 3 4 5
3 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Rampton. As ever you 4 5 MR. EARDLEY: Nothing to say, my Lord. 6 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Mr. Price, you have the right to respond on 7 8 9
the authorities which have been cited today and which you are very welcome to do now or in 10 minutes. Which would you prefer? your Lordship thinks it would be a good moment to break anyway. you at half past three. (Short adjournment) minutes, but I would like, with your Lordship's permission, to pick up about six or seven points, some of which are points of fact rather than on the cases. The first two do not actually arise out of anything that my learned friend really said, but one finds that one of them relates to the cross-examination of Mr. Mengi on the Nicol case. The first one is a very simple one. I am about 99.9 percent sure that your Lordship has picked this up, but I thought I would mention it, just in case you have not. Your Lordship will recall that the undertaking
late 2012. 6 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: As you accepted last week, that is very 7 strange, because even if nobody outside this room was taken into account, it would be more than five visits. 9 MR. PRICE: Yes. But where is the evidence, is the point. It has 10 been an uphill struggle for me to interest your Lordship, if I
8 11 12 13 14 15 16
10 MR. PRICE: My Lord, I certainly do not need 10 minutes unless 11 12
can put it that way, in the abuse of process argument, but I just do ask your Lordship to keep in mind that if Mr. Mengi had sued on that alone, it would have been struck out on Jameel principles, because he would have failed to produce evidence of publication. The onus is on him to prove
13 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Let's take a break now and I will hear from 14 15
16 MR. PRICE: My Lord, it probably will not be more than about ten 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
publication. 17 MR. RAMPTON: I am very unhappy about this. Mr. Price himself 18 said that those figures in those bits of paper were not
19
reliable.
20 MR. PRICE: Then we have a situation in which there is no evidence 21 of any reliability before your Lordship that anybody in 22 23
England and Tanzania read it. Those are worldwide figures
over three years. I just make that point. 24 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: You say that if this point that one cannot 25 reliably know who, where and in what numbers read the website,
[28] (Pages 1088 to 1091)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
1 2
REPLY - DEFENDANT that is Mr. Rampton's problem, not yours.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
3 MR. PRICE: Yes. 4 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: All one can say is that they were published to 5 7 8 9 10 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
someone, but we do not know who. presumption of substantial publication just because it is on the web; and as we all know from the case of Al Amoudi v. Brisard, you cannot presume, you have to prove. This is in our skeleton argument at paragraph ---authorities. argument is paragraph 26: no presumption of publication simply because it has been on the Internet. That is clearly what Al Amoudi decides. "The court can infer that substantial publication and/or substantial injury, has taken place, but, as Eady J said in Carrie v. Tolkien: 'It will not suffice merely to plead that the posting has been accessed by "a large but unquantifiable number of readers". There must be some solid basis for the inference.'" So, I persist in attempting to interest your Lordship at least a little bit in that aspect of our case. Just for your Lordship's note, the evidence that PST News Agency, which Mr. Kimambo works for, is part of the IPP
6 MR. PRICE: Yes. My learned friend ends up having to rely on a
11 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Never mind the skeleton. It is tab 19 in the 13 MR. PRICE: Yes, it is. The relevant paragraph in the skeleton
REPLY - DEFENDANT not the test; and one sees that absolutely clearly from Watts v. The Times. One needs to be a bit cautious about dicta in this field, because the dicta tend to be tailored to the facts of the individual case. In Watts v. The Times, your Lordship will recall that there were two defendants; one was The Times and the other was the victim, Mr. Nigel Watts, who was wrongly identified as the plagiarist. Your Lordship will recall that The Times was denied privilege on a response to the attack basis because it was not the victim of the attack and it was not necessary to include anything about the claimant in the response. One finds that, if I can find the authority ---MR. JUSTICE BEAN: It is point 2 in the headnote. MR. PRICE: I think that is probably right. So, as a matter of decision, it was not necessary to include anything about the innocent victim, Nigel Watts, the author, and so The Times was denied privilege on that basis. But where the victim was responding, that is not the test; there is a wide latitude. I will not take you through it. The facts of Watts v. The Times are rather complicated, but it is my number one authority on this point. It is not the only one, but it is the one that I particularly, as your Lordship knows, rely on. Just a word, if I may, on Cambridge v. Makin. Your Lordship may have noticed that the judge, and indeed the Court of Appeal -- this is in fact to be found in the
[Page 1093]
1 2 3 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
[Page 1095]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
REPLY - DEFENDANT group, the reference to that in the evidence, it was Mr. Mauggo in chief, actually -- my learned friend put this to Mr. Mauggo -- it is day 3, page 390, at lines 9 to 10. is employment or a regular correspondent. He is a regular correspondent in Moshi. when he is told to jump. Just on the point of what was said at the meeting with Mr. Pocock, I think your Lordship put to my learned friend, "Well, it is common ground that Mr. Middleton complained about the coverage," and then your Lordship said, "I have to make a finding about what was said." My learned friend said, "Well, it is quite possible that Mr. Mengi may have said something inconsequential." I just ask your Lordship to keep in mind what Mr. Mengi said at paragraph 111B of his witness statement on this point. If your Lordship wants to look it up, it is in file 2, 111B, at page 45. "Stuart Middleton complained. I told him I would not be able to intervene and put a stop to the coverage." So, that is Mr. Mengi's evidence on the point. Moving to response to attack, my learned friend, at a number of points, emphasised, of necessity, that there was no need to include that in what Ms. Middleton said. As regards response to attack, I would seek to re-emphasise that that is
5 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: It probably does not matter whether the status
8 MR. PRICE: It may not. But if he is an employee, he has to jump
REPLY - DEFENDANT headnote, at paragraph 10 of the headnote. I have them in slightly different form. I think it is headnote 10. It is the third of the holdings. "In the instant case the judge taking such considerations into account .... (read to the words) his own unjustified views." So, your Lordship sees that this was dealt with by the judge and by the Court of Appeal as a duty case rather than a common and corresponding interest one. Your Lordship sees that in the judgments. At paragraph 44, one sees it in the quote from Tugendhat J, who I think was the trial judge. Paragraph 44: "In all the circumstances, it was my judgment no duty." Then, in the judgment of the Court of Appeal, at paragraph 50, about two-thirds of the way through paragraph 50, the Court of Appeal says: "He had no legal, social or moral duty to pass on to persons his own unjustified views." Now, I do not want to place too much weight on this, because a duty interest and common and corresponding interests, I do not suggest that they are completely discrete categories; they do tend to run into each other. But the point I think one needs to keep in mind where Cambridge v. Makin is concerned is that this really does appear to have been a case of an officious intermeddler. The defendant had really no business, apart from intermeddling, in doing this. If he had had a legal, social or moral duty, well then, that would justify him intermeddling. The point is that
[29] (Pages 1092 to 1095)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 25
REPLY - DEFENDANT he was not a victim in this; he was not a person with an interest that needed protection; and if he had been, the outcome, in our respectful submission, would have been rather different. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: But he was not an intermeddler. He was a member of the Association. MR. PRICE: Well, he was. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: And he wanted the claimant removed from the Board of Directors. with other members, but no one else. He had, in effect, taken it upon himself to take an interest in it, which he was perfectly entitled to do, but it was not a case of him having been the victim of an attack or of being a person who had a personal interest to pursue, which, we say, gives a much wider and more liberal freedom for communicating to interested persons. I respectfully doubt if you would have found the court dividing up the readership in the way in which they did in Cambridge v. Makin if it had been in any sense a response to attack case. case about reply to attack. particular interest to pursue, because then the question is:
REPLY - DEFENDANT 2 MR. PRICE: That is at common law; nothing to do with section 5. 3 Unless anybody waives that, that is all I wanted to say, my
1
Lord. 5 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Did you want to say anything about 6 Mr. Rampton's argument about the contrast between this case
4 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
11 MR. PRICE: Yes, and, as a result, he was entitled to communicate
22 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Well, Mr. Rampton did not put it forward as a 24 MR. PRICE: Quite so, or indeed a case where somebody had a
and Hewitt v. Grunwald, under the common corresponding interest privilege? Mr. Rampton says that the prospective readers of Miss Hermitage's website are not a targeted group in the way that the British Jewry was the presumed overwhelming majority of the readers of the (inaudible) are. MR. PRICE: Well, to some extent, the answer to that is Vassilief v. Kass, but I think my learned friend says, well, that is a targeted group too. But in my respectful submission, it is the wrong question to look for a distinct class of any kind, because what one is looking for is, is the defendant pursuing or protecting an interest of her own -- that is on the one hand; and on the other hand, a group of publishees who have a corresponding interest to receive it. So, the characteristic that has to define the class of recipients is no more than having an interest in the publication. That is the defining characteristic. So, for my learned friend to insist that you have to have some other defining characteristic of the group, such as Jews or members of the bar, is just wrong. It may be much easier if you happen to be addressing a defined group
[Page 1097]
1 REPLY - DEFENDANT 2 well, do the recipients share that interest? 3 Finally, the question of section 12 of the Defamation 4 Act 1952, the distinct charges ---5 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Section 5. 6 MR. PRICE: I am sorry. It is section 5. Of course, you are 7 right, it is section 5 -- distinct charges. We respectfully 8 agree with some of what Mr. Rampton says on that. If 9 your Lordship were to find as a fact that Mr. Mengi had 10 knowingly assisted his brother's corrupt campaign, that would 11 bring section 5 in, and we would say that we would win, 12 whatever your Lordship found on the Pocock meeting. On the 13 other hand, if your Lordship were to find that one of the 14 promises was made in the Pocock meeting, but not the others, 15 one might or might not be in the distinct charge situation. 16 But what your Lordship would have to consider then is: is 17 there substantial justification? Justification does not have 18 to be of every word or every part; it is the sting or 19 substance that has to be true. We would say, quite simply, 20 that if your Lordship finds that one promise was given at the 21 meeting which Mr. Mengi had no intention of fulfilling, well 22 then, we would say that that is enough to justify the sting or 23 substance of the charge, even if your Lordship were to find 24 that Mr. Middleton is misremembering the others. 25 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: And that is at common law.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
[Page 1099]
REPLY - CLAIMANT like the Bar Council addressing members of the bar; that, as a matter of analysis, is relatively easy. But that is not the defining characteristic required. The defining characteristic is simply having the corresponding interest. The way we put the case, simply, is that where you are dealing with a website like the Silverdale Farm case, as we see, relatively limited numbers of people have accessed it over the three years, and who must they be? Answer: for the most part, they must be people with a particular interest. As to whether all of them did, we do not know, but on that, the onus is on the claimant to show that people outside the interest read it and accessed it. That is what Eady J said in Hewitt v. Grunwald, as your Lordship will recall. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Thank you. MR. RAMPTON: My Lord ---MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Mr. Rampton, you are entitled to ---MR. RAMPTON: I am not going to make a second speech. I have never heard that done before, but the judge did not seem to mind. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Mr. Price went slightly outside today 's authorities, but you can have the last word. MR. RAMPTON: I do not mind at all. First of all, can I do something which I am not sure I did earlier. I would like to hand in something which was disclosed, I think, last Friday by
[30] (Pages 1096 to 1099)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 15 16
REPLY - CLAIMANT the defendant finally, which is the e-mail she received from Mr. Kaul, to which Sir Alan Fields refers in his letter. It is in what has now become a very familiar form. It refers to the usual got-up headline, "Director of the Commonwealth British Council in Tanzania intimidates", in black italics -the usual stuff. It is regrettable, because this is a publication in England, and it does seem to us very regrettable indeed that we only got it on Friday. I say no more than that. give or take a few words. I have seen it before. Can you give me the reference? to put it. Tab C in 1.2, next to Sir Alan Fields' letter. (Pause)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
REPLY - CLAIMANT colleagues and acquaintances told me at the time that they visited the defendants' website or now confirm that they did. Amongst these is Dr. Mohan Kaul, who told me that he visited the website and was shocked at the allegations. He also said several other persons had mentioned the website to him and expressed the same reaction." Now, that paragraph in Mr. Mengi's witness statement is his unchallenged evidence. It was not challenged in cross-examination. Had it been, and had it not been for what Tugendhat J said in his judgment, Mr. Mengi would have been able to come up with a list. He did not, for the reasons that Tugendhat J has given. That stands as his evidence, and it cannot be challenged. I deliberately did not ask him. I could have done. It was not challenged by Mr. Price. -- I said, I do not see how it could have been challenged. been the challenge, if he thinks it is not true. prove publication. I am going to leave it where it lies. any submissions to make?
11 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Well, the content looks very familiar indeed,
14 MR. RAMPTON: Mr. Eardley will tell me where I asked your Lordship 14
15
16 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: I do not see how it could have been, except by 17 18 MR. RAMPTON: "Give me some names, Mr. Mengi" -- that would have 19 20 MR. PRICE: I am not going to challenge evidence which fails to 21 22 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Right. Well, gentlemen, has anybody else got 23 24 MR. RAMPTON: No. 25 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Right.
17 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. 18 MR. RAMPTON: There are two other things only I wish to mention, 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
and I shall not be half an hour. Paragraph 30 of Kearns, which is tab 14 of the authorities -- which we have not looked at, because I assumed you knew enough about it -- but in the light of what Mr. Price has just said, I think it probably is worth looking at -- about serving one's own interests. Simon Brown LJ says, at paragraph 30: "The argument as it seems to me has been much bedevilled .... (read to the words)
[Page 1101]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
[Page 1103]
REPLY - CLAIMANT 2 MR. RAMPTON: You will be pleased to hear. 3 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Rampton. I will 4 reserve judgment and send it out to counsel on the usual terms
1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
REPLY - CLAIMANT .... as at first blush this distinction would suggest." I do not, of course, maintain that that is so. Mr. Price might, but if so, Simon Brown LJ says he is wrong. Simon Brown LJ goes on: "To my mind an altogether more helpful .... (read to the words) .... otherwise than by reference to their relationship" -- which of course is this case before your Lordship: no established pre-existing relationship. Now, the final thing I wish to mention is -- and this is quite serious, because it could have been dealt with -your Lordship will remember that in his judgment on 9th October, having concluded that the case could stand as it stood then, with damages taking a back seat but by no means out of the car, he concluded, towards the end of his judgment, by saying this, at paragraph 21: "In the circumstances it would be inappropriate for me to express a view on the strength or otherwise of the claimant's case as to the extent to which the words complained of in the blog had been published in the past. But as a matter of case management, in the light of the foregoing, I would expect that little time will be spent at the trial on issues of who read the words complained of on the blog and in what jurisdiction." We, my Lord, have been faithful to that injunction, with the result that if your Lordship looks at paragraph 135 of Mr. Mengi's witness statement, he says this: "A good number of my
as soon as possible, and then invite submissions about costs, permission to appeal, and any other ancillary matters in the light of the judgment. _____________________________
[31] (Pages 1100 to 1103)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
19 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 8 [Page 1104] 1103:6 appear 983:14 986:15 987:10 993:7 1012:10 1012:12 1025:2 1095:22 appearance 1014:8,22 appeared 980:19 980:21 appearing 1022:18 appears 982:18 995:22 998:6 1021:16 appellant 1066:24 Appendix 989:16 application 990:12,18,21 1028:24 applied 1050:4,22 1060:2 applies 1046:21 1086:6 apply 983:23 989:22,22 990:11 1047:13 1050:5 1060:12 1088:25 appreciated 1011:21 approach 1087:5 appropriate 1028:3 1044:16 1061:11 1082:17,19 approval 1066:5 approve 1066:5 approved 992:13 992:17,19 1000:9 approximately 1087:17 April 997:20 1008:14 1013:22 1014:18 1016:18 1021:14 1024:11 apt 1024:18 1031:12 1049:22 area 1082:4 1083:22 arena 1048:16 arguably 986:17 argue 1078:20 1088:8 argued 1054:22 argument 981:8 981:14,19 982:24 987:15 998:8,8 1032:11 1034:10 1037:12 1038:21 1049:3 1049:9 1082:13 1091:11 1092:10,14 1098:6 1100:24 arises 982:22 arrived 982:10 article 991:14 1025:6 1030:24 1030:25 1031:5 1031:14,17 1035:21 1036:9 1036:10 1037:21,22 1038:23 1039:3 1050:2 1051:25 1052:4,10,16,17 1053:3,14 1069:5 1073:25 articles 992:14,14 994:3,14 997:14 1001:5,19 1002:3 1003:21 1012:10 1013:23,24 1014:15,21,23 1014:24 1018:2 1018:21 1020:14 1021:9 1022:17 1023:20 1025:12 1030:12,14,19 1034:19 1036:2 1038:12 1050:2 1050:9 1051:4 aside 1048:19 asked 1009:19 1019:24 1023:8 1052:9 1080:9 1100:14 asking 1009:14 1051:24 asks 1014:8,11 1034:18 aspect 1092:22 assault 989:7 1052:3 asserting 1013:22 asserts 1057:16 assess 1045:18 assessing 1063:19 assessment 1088:13 assist
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
A abandoned 1049:4 able 1005:12 1043:5 1055:14 1055:14 1072:3 1072:4,24 1076:18 1077:7 1078:18,20 1083:7 1093:20 1102:11 abreast 1027:4 absence 1001:20 1045:20 absent 1007:18 1071:24 absolute 1043:8 1046:19 absolutely 990:20 1046:25 1068:16 1078:15 1094:2 abuse 1056:11 1091:11 abusive 995:21 accept 991:23 1002:14 1034:11 accepted 1002:2,3 1002:14 1091:6 accepts 1011:18 access 1031:18 accessed 1092:19 1099:8,12 accidental 995:24 accords 1036:17 1036:18 account 1021:6 1022:8 1024:9 1048:7 1049:8 1053:10 1091:8 1095:5 accounts 1024:7 accusation 1019:4 accusations 986:18,22,25 1027:22 1052:16 accused 1054:19 1080:15 accuses 1045:3 accusing 1021:13 1034:25 1051:2 1053:3 achieve 1045:18 achieved 1059:11 acquaintances 1102:2 Act 989:14 1097:4 acting 1008:22
1054:19 action 989:19 1049:19 1083:16 1087:10 actions 1038:2,5 active 1007:18 activities 999:23 999:25 1074:17 acts 997:12,12 actual 993:10 994:7 1027:16 1060:10 ad 1034:25 Adam 1044:21 1045:24 1046:22,23 adamant 1010:19 1010:22,24,24 add 999:20 1029:17 1070:16 additional 1030:16 1049:15 addressed 1009:8 1009:9,10 1064:23 1073:21 addressees 1061:2 addresses 1060:10 addressing 1010:14 1098:25 1099:2 adds 990:7 Adjourned 1051:14 adjournment 1026:18 1053:9 1089:15 advanced 1069:18 advice 1009:6,19 1009:20,20 advocates 1024:18 affair 1008:16 affairs 1046:8 1072:10 afforded 1045:16 afraid 1032:10 Africa 1081:10 African 1062:25 Agency 1092:25 aggressive 982:4 AGM 1055:11 1056:25 1060:5 ago 1036:25 1050:9 1057:9 agree 1063:23 1097:8 agreed
1020:13 1020:15 1023:18 1083:18 1084:20 agreement 1025:4 agricultural 988:4 agriculture 1091:2 Ah 988:16 ahead 1086:3 aid 996:22 1064:20 AIDAN 980:19 aimed 1059:11 1073:22 1075:22 1077:18 aiming 1072:4 Air 1050:7 aircraft 1079:24 Al 1092:8,16 Alan 1100:3,15 alive 1001:13 allegation 981:20 981:21,22 983:6 987:15,16 988:22,24,25,25 989:3,3,8 990:5 992:11,12,24 996:4,6,8 997:2 997:2,4 1000:6 1000:8 1007:13 1021:15,19 1042:17 1073:2 1084:2,4 1086:18,25 1087:22,25 1088:6,11,14,16 1088:17,18 allegations 981:9 986:23 988:11 996:11,19 997:24 1004:18 1080:8 1084:13 1085:15,21 1087:19 1102:5 alleged 992:7 993:2 996:3 1008:11 1010:13,20 1030:14 allegedly 997:9 alleging 1083:18 allowed 1045:9 1071:13 alternative 1048:20 altogether 1101:5 ambassador
1006:7 American 1070:20 amicable 1004:19 Amoudi 1092:8 1092:16 amount 1088:5 analysis 1099:3 ancillary 1065:12 1071:6,8 1072:7 1103:6 and/or 1092:17 Anglican 1080:20 answer 999:3 1028:7 1049:20 1050:22 1053:7 1057:2 1083:14 1085:18 1098:12 1099:9 answered 1049:17 ante 1015:7 anxieties 1025:21 anxiety 1024:23 anybody 999:4 1057:8,22 1058:2 1062:22 1064:18 1067:12 1076:23 1078:3 1078:14 1091:21 1098:3 1102:22 anybody's 1008:5 anyway 984:21 992:22 1005:10 1009:17 1013:9 1028:23 1039:15 1042:4 1086:8 1089:12 apart 991:5 992:18 999:23 1003:17 1011:12 1015:22 1060:16 1067:10 1095:23 apologise 1016:15 apparent 1029:21 1055:3 apparently 1000:9 1028:22 appeal 986:20 987:3 1054:21 1059:6 1063:7 1066:4,5,13 1068:18 1071:13 1079:7 1094:25 1095:8 1095:13,15
MARTEN WALSH CHERER LTD
1ST FLOOR, 6-9 QUALITY COURT, CHANCERY LANE
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
19 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 8 [Page 1105] 1096:6,9,22 1097:5,25 1098:5 1099:15 1099:17,21 1100:11,17 1102:16,22,25 1103:3 bear 998:5 1070:18 bearing 1079:20 beat 1015:10 bedevilled 1100:25 beg 1026:14 1039:19 1068:5 beginning 1038:24 1068:10 begins 991:14 behalf 1034:4 behaviour 985:19 belief 1012:14 believe 981:9 1000:13 1022:22 1029:12,24 1054:8 1081:17 1083:9 1084:19 1085:5,14 1087:12 1088:4 believed 1019:12 1019:17 1076:19 believes 1014:13 belongings 1070:13 belongs 1002:10 Ben 1004:8,8 1013:17,18 BENCH 980:1 benefit 1031:7 Benjamin 988:18 992:6 1000:24 1002:22 1004:17,20,24 1005:2 1008:22 1010:2 1012:19 1023:3 1051:5 1083:16 Bennett 1067:3 besmirched 1042:17 besmirching 1030:4 best 1000:8 1013:12 1026:11 1039:9 1091:3 better 1037:2,4 1038:18 1069:2 1074:8 1079:10 1081:20 1082:12 beyond 1007:24 1030:4 1040:8 1044:5 big 999:8 1012:16 1013:13 1059:18 Bishop 1028:15 1028:22 1029:10 1039:10 1080:5 1080:20 Bishops 1050:6 1067:11 bit 990:24 992:2,6 1026:14 1060:17 1087:15 1092:22 1094:3 bits 1084:2 1091:18 bitter 1007:6 black 1100:6 blacken 1064:22 blackmail 1015:10,11 Blackwell 1032:2 1032:18,23 1033:8,9 1040:9 blog 1051:22 1052:16,19,19 1058:5 1077:9 1101:18,22 blogs 1075:21 blotted 1070:2 bluntly 997:13 blush 1101:2 Board 1062:15 1065:6 1073:3,9 1073:21 1074:12 1075:19 1078:2 1096:10 bone 1027:21 book 989:15 994:25 1063:4 borders 1059:17 bored 996:14 born 995:24,25,25 bother 1063:13 bothered 994:17 bottom 999:16 1020:6 1039:16 1044:12 1068:19 1071:11 bound 1014:19 box 998:22
993:16 1000:12 1020:17 assisted 1097:10 assisting 993:14 association 1056:24 1061:4 1067:16 1072:10 1096:7 assume 1011:6 1078:6 assumed 1100:21 assurance 985:5 1011:23 Atkins 1044:20 Atkinson 1045:24 1046:22 attach 1042:2 attack 995:21 1026:23,24 1027:8 1028:11 1029:6,18,22,24 1030:3,6,18,23 1030:25,25 1031:11,14,20 1031:25 1033:17 1034:3 1034:12,24,25 1035:8 1036:4 1036:10,19,22 1036:24 1037:17 1038:7 1038:8 1039:3,5 1039:7,25 1040:3,6,23 1045:24 1046:13,15,15 1046:16,23,25 1047:11,14,19 1047:20,22 1048:2,5,6,8,10 1048:15,20,21 1048:23 1049:14,15,15 1049:24,25 1050:19,21,24 1051:10,15 1052:20,22 1053:7 1069:23 1093:22,25 1094:9,10 1096:15,21,23 attacked 1027:20 1040:2 1069:21 attacking 1031:15 1033:21 attacks 1035:9,12 1035:14 1036:5 1038:11 1047:15 1051:2 attain 1045:16 attempt
996:6,21 1004:21 attempting 1092:21 attend 1080:13 attended 1004:16 attends 1080:17 attention 998:21 1006:15 1044:10 1045:7 1062:10 1070:11 1074:21,25 attitude 999:16 Attkinson 1063:17 attributes 985:11 audience 1036:21 1040:2,5,19 1048:7 Australia 1037:3 1040:25 author 1094:16 authorities 1032:6 1032:7 1044:16 1053:23 1062:2 1089:7 1092:12 1099:22 1100:20 authority 993:24 1027:7 1036:8 1039:17 1040:25 1064:2 1086:17 1094:12,21 authors 1068:20 automatic 1062:19 avail 1004:21 1029:13 1065:20 available 1030:13 1034:9 1052:5 1070:22 avid 990:25 awarded 1088:5 aware 1003:6 1018:21 1021:10 1031:13 1086:23 B b 1057:22 Ba 1081:2 back 987:14 989:15 990:8 993:9 994:22,23 996:14 997:19 1015:12 1020:9 1020:11 1036:2
1039:20 1069:22 1071:14 1079:4 1079:22 1101:13 backwards 997:24 1000:4 bad 992:6 996:23 997:14 1043:5 1081:6 1088:9 balance 1015:4 1024:14 bang 1027:3 1035:21 bar 1025:20 1032:8 1062:12 1062:12 1064:7 1098:24 1099:2 1099:2 barge 1061:16 BARNES 980:20 Barr 1063:2 based 983:7,11 1003:23 1070:23 basic 1040:24 1071:7 basics 1039:21 basis 1007:13 1011:8,8 1042:14 1092:21 1094:10,17 Bates 1032:22 1033:6,21,22 1034:11 battery 1041:3 battle 1037:25 baulking 1086:16 BBC 1081:11 BEAN 980:6 981:2,15 983:23 984:7 985:13,22 986:2 989:18 990:9,15 991:11 991:14,19 992:9 993:20 994:12 994:24 995:8 997:2,10 998:24 999:20 1000:18 1000:20 1001:3 1001:8,11,13,18 1001:25 1002:4 1002:18,23 1004:3,5,10,12 1004:15 1006:11 1007:2 1007:5 1008:5,7 1010:12 1011:10 1013:2
1015:9,14,16,20 1016:13 1017:12,14,18 1017:21,24 1018:18,24 1019:22 1020:2 1020:5 1021:20 1022:4,12 1023:13,22 1024:3 1026:12 1026:16,19 1027:10,12,17 1028:12,24 1031:9 1032:6 1032:12 1033:2 1035:12,16,19 1036:7 1037:2 1037:14 1038:11,16,18 1038:23 1039:3 1039:10,16 1041:12 1045:21 1046:21,25 1047:5,7,13,18 1047:24 1048:23,25 1049:5 1051:9 1051:12,18,23 1053:5,24 1054:3,5 1056:5 1057:2,7,14,18 1057:21 1058:2 1058:12,16 1059:8 1060:24 1061:6,9,19 1062:8 1063:6 1063:10 1064:17,25 1065:5 1066:2,7 1066:9,11 1067:20,24 1069:9,14,16 1075:16,19 1076:2,5,13 1077:4,7,12,23 1078:11,14,24 1079:14 1081:21 1082:12,24 1083:4,14 1084:12 1085:18 1086:12,16 1087:12,16 1089:3,6,13 1090:4,17 1091:6,24 1092:4,11 1093:5 1094:13
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
19 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 8 [Page 1106] 1099:4,4 characters 1038:5 charge 989:25 990:6,6,18,19 990:21 991:5,6 991:7,9 1001:7 1027:25 1033:11 1097:15,23 charges 989:20,24 991:4,6 1097:4 1097:7 charitable 999:24 charity 1072:21 Charter 1074:2 cheeky 1033:8 Chelsea 1032:20 chemist 1069:10 Cherer 980:15 chief 1093:3 choice 1015:21 1017:4 1024:5 1043:4 1067:10 choose 983:20 chooses 1082:22 chosen 1049:22 church 1050:16 1062:25 1079:24 1080:2 1080:11,13,17 1080:17 circumstances 982:22 987:8 1037:23 1085:19 1095:12 1101:15 cite 1041:14,23 1068:8,9 1070:20 cited 1089:7 cites 1063:8 1066:4,6,14 citizen 1046:17 city 1039:4 civil 1044:5 1083:16 claim 980:1 1064:9 1084:15 1086:21,25 1087:10 claimant 980:10 980:19 981:1 982:1 983:1,17 984:1 985:1 986:1 987:1 988:1 989:1 990:1 991:1 992:1 993:1 994:1 995:1 996:1 997:1 998:1 999:1 1000:1 1001:1 1002:1 1003:1 1004:1,17,20 1005:1 1006:1 1007:1 1008:1 1009:1 1010:1 1011:1 1012:1 1013:1,3,5 1014:1 1015:1 1016:1 1017:1 1018:1 1019:1 1020:1,13,19 1021:1 1022:1 1023:1,18 1024:1 1025:1 1026:1 1027:1 1028:1 1029:1 1030:1,2 1031:1 1032:1 1033:1 1033:18,19 1034:1,15 1035:1 1036:1 1037:1,18 1038:1 1039:1 1040:1,2 1041:1 1042:1 1043:1 1044:1 1045:1 1046:1 1047:1 1048:1 1049:1 1050:1 1051:1 1052:1 1053:1 1054:1,16,19 1055:1 1056:1 1057:1 1058:1 1059:1,2 1060:1 1061:1 1062:1 1063:1 1064:1 1065:1 1066:1 1067:1 1068:1 1069:1,21 1070:1 1071:1 1072:1,12 1073:1 1074:1 1075:1,8 1076:1 1077:1 1078:1 1078:12 1079:1 1080:1 1081:1 1082:1 1083:1 1084:1 1085:1 1085:18 1086:1 1087:1 1088:1 1094:11 1096:9 1099:1,11 1100:1 1101:1 1102:1 1103:1 claimants 1058:23 1073:15 1076:17 claimant's
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
998:22 1002:25 breach 1014:24 1022:18 break 1026:13,17 1089:11,13 Breed 980:19 briefly 989:13 1027:8 bright 1016:20 bring 1006:14 1097:11 brings 989:13 Brisard 1092:9 British 983:25 995:22 1012:6 1050:17 1058:10 1059:15 1064:23 1065:14 1067:15 1069:5 1073:3 1078:8 1080:3 1088:6 1098:10 1100:6 broadcast 1062:6 broadly 1057:5 1087:22 broke 984:16 broken 984:15 996:8,11,16 1056:13 brother 988:18 989:4 990:20 992:5 993:16 995:20 996:21 997:8 1002:22 1003:4,24 1004:5,8 1005:9 1005:14 1020:15,19 brothers 991:20 1003:7 brother's 993:14 995:10 1000:12 1097:10 brought 1083:16 Brown 1100:24 1101:4,4 brutal 987:16 built 989:10 998:11 bundle 1032:6 1050:13 burden 1000:25 1053:17 1054:13 1055:4 1057:15,15 1059:3 1075:14 1077:22 1078:15 bush
1015:10 business 1003:25 1004:6,8 1005:3 1005:8 1033:9 1042:16 1061:14 1081:8 1095:23 businessman 1080:14 buying 1064:15 b,e 1067:18 C C 980:23 1100:15 call 987:11,17 992:11 1007:23 1012:16 1016:21 1019:23 1022:13,23 1023:11,14 1026:24 1030:16 1035:23 1036:17 1038:8 1051:7 1059:16 1062:17 1064:11 1086:5 called 981:20 1001:11,15,17 1002:8,12,13 1006:2,22 1009:20 1028:15 1032:2 1032:17 1040:13 1041:17 1053:22 1064:6 1065:12 1072:21,23 calling 1030:16 calls 1003:2,15 Cambridge 1053:22 1060:2 1060:23,25 1066:10 1071:16 1072:9 1094:23 1095:21 1096:20 campaign 993:15 1005:13 1007:14 1035:3 1056:14,15 1080:16 1088:23 1097:10 cancer 1069:5 capable 986:18 car 1101:14 care 1031:22,24
1037:8 careful 1012:6 carefully 1084:19 Carrie 1092:18 carrying 981:23 Carter-Ruck 980:21 case 980:24 981:10 983:24 984:21 987:5 992:19,20 1000:14,21 1005:25 1009:25 1012:4 1012:7 1017:6 1018:18 1019:10,10 1020:20 1025:25 1027:15,23 1028:9,14,22,25 1030:25 1032:2 1032:2,17,17,20 1034:6 1035:20 1036:9 1037:19 1037:20 1038:17 1039:10,18,25 1040:9,23 1041:9,10,13,15 1041:25 1042:3 1042:5,5 1043:15 1044:10 1046:22 1047:14 1048:10,21 1049:8,16 1051:16 1052:12 1053:21 1054:6 1054:7,7,12,24 1056:10,11,16 1057:8,9 1058:9 1058:9,15 1059:3,7,14,15 1060:2,9,24 1061:11 1062:21 1064:6 1065:7,21,23 1066:10,18,20 1067:2,4,13,19 1067:21 1068:3 1068:6,15 1069:24 1070:19 1072:6 1072:12,15,24 1073:8,18 1075:2,9,12,24 1075:25
1077:21 1078:5 1078:17,17 1079:6 1083:22 1085:8 1086:8 1089:22,24 1092:8,23 1094:5 1095:4,8 1095:22 1096:14,21,23 1096:24 1098:6 1099:6,7 1101:7 1101:12,17,19 cases 993:25 1031:5 1032:16 1032:16 1039:14 1062:8 1062:17 1067:14 1070:20 1076:8 1076:9 1086:13 1086:13 1089:19 castigating 1069:7 casual 1025:20 1071:3 categories 1057:23 1095:19 cause 1038:22 1049:19 cautious 1094:3 cease 1013:24 centre 1050:7 1079:25 century 1027:2 1045:3 1067:21 1068:3,5 certain 1012:5 1084:12 certainly 994:17 1016:14,22 1022:15 1072:9 1089:10 Chairman 1090:8 challenge 1102:19 1102:20 challenged 998:15 1002:2 1005:9 1102:9,13,14,17 chance 1001:20 Chancery 980:16 change 1056:8 changed 986:8 character 1027:20 1038:2 characterised 1016:4 1034:11 1034:23 characteristic 1098:19,22,23
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
19 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 8 [Page 1107] 1016:12 1024:8 1033:14 1043:15 1044:6 1045:16 1049:25 1067:12 1075:13 1095:21 concerns 1011:14 1025:21 1067:7 concert 988:17 992:7 concerted 1056:14,15 concluded 1101:12,14 conclusion 1069:2 conclusive 1051:19 conditions 1042:2 1047:2 conducive 1042:24 conduct 1027:20 conducted 1000:11 1035:2 1088:23 conducting 995:20 1080:15 conference 1025:20 confidence 1033:19 1055:12 confine 1047:21 confined 1053:13 1053:16 1065:19 confirm 1102:3 confirmed 1023:23 conflict 1009:24 1055:22 conflicted 1008:21 1009:3 1009:7 conflicting 1024:6 1024:6,7 connected 1070:7 connection 1070:14 conscious 985:5 consent 1074:9 consider 993:5 1097:16 considerable 1012:7 1072:16 consideration 1028:5 1029:19 1068:15 1069:20 1074:19 considerations 1043:6 1056:6 1060:12 1088:25 1095:5 considered 1001:12 1049:11,12 considering 1070:18 consistent 1008:15 Consistently 1043:6 conspiracy 989:4 constituency 1028:10,13 1029:3 1048:16 constitute 1047:23 constructed 1065:18 construed 1075:8 consult 1009:24 contain 1079:25 contained 1038:12 1073:13 1080:8 contains 989:23 contemplate 1077:9 contemporaneous 1006:24 1010:17 1015:24,25 1024:16,17,20 contend 1038:3 contended 986:3 content 986:13 1003:16 1007:22 1055:9 1062:4 1100:11 context 981:24 984:18 990:6 993:7,20,25 994:5 1004:6 1005:6 1033:24 1046:11 1051:5 continuation 1086:24 continued 1030:9 continues 995:14 continuing 1035:23 contrast 1098:6 contributed 1034:16 control 1033:12 conventional
1076:17 claimant's 1030:4 1034:10 1035:9 1056:17 1072:19 1101:17 class 1060:25 1061:2,6 1098:15,20 classes 1056:3,3 Classic 1044:14 clear 993:3 1002:11 1008:11 1010:24 1011:19 1012:11 1014:20 1017:4 1021:17 1037:12 1054:9 1069:6 1081:12 clearcut 1074:4 clearly 984:8 985:25 1017:6 1025:17 1092:15 1094:2 client 1064:4 1087:23 Clifford 1027:23 clinicians 1068:21 clip 1041:10 cloak 1040:10 1053:14 1080:25 close 1039:12 1081:4 closer 1067:2 closing 981:1,8 982:1 983:1 984:1 985:1 986:1 987:1 988:1 989:1 990:1 991:1 992:1 993:1 994:1 995:1 996:1 997:1 998:1 999:1 1000:1 1001:1 1002:1 1003:1 1004:1 1005:1 1006:1 1007:1 1008:1 1009:1 1010:1 1011:1 1012:1 1013:1 1014:1 1015:1 1016:1 1017:1 1018:1 1019:1 1020:1 1021:1 1022:1 1023:1 1024:1 1025:1
1026:1 1027:1 1028:1 1029:1 1030:1 1031:1 1032:1 1033:1 1034:1 1035:1 1036:1 1037:1 1038:1 1039:1 1040:1 1041:1 1042:1 1043:1 1044:1 1045:1 1046:1 1047:1 1048:1 1049:1 1050:1 1051:1 1052:1 1053:1 1054:1 1055:1 1056:1 1057:1 1058:1 1059:1 1060:1 1061:1 1062:1 1063:1 1064:1 1065:1 1066:1 1067:1 1068:1 1069:1 1070:1 1071:1 1072:1 1073:1 1074:1 1075:1 1076:1 1077:1 1078:1 1079:1 1080:1 1081:1 1082:1 1083:1 1084:1 1085:1 1086:1 1087:1 1088:1 club 1033:9 coals 1053:2 colleagues 1102:2 colloquialism 1015:7 columns 1047:16 come 988:21,21 992:11 997:19 997:25 1014:25 1019:19 1026:2 1029:9,12 1035:6 1036:13 1036:15 1059:12 1060:16 1071:14 1074:2 1078:18 1079:4 1085:11 1086:2 1102:11 comes 998:5 1010:18 1013:11 1015:11 1020:4 1020:5 1069:22 1088:12 coming 986:23 1005:23 1006:4 comment 982:19
983:5,6,7,8,9,20 985:10 986:14 986:15,19,19 987:7,9 988:6 996:5 1020:24 1026:21 commentary 1068:23 commentators 1034:18 comments 983:13 986:17 987:2 Commission 1062:3 Commissioner 983:25 1012:6 1012:22 1087:18 commitment 988:3 995:16 1090:25 committed 1015:17 Committee 990:16 common 1003:5 1011:17 1017:14 1018:22 1034:6 1036:18 1042:5 1044:13 1045:21,23 1048:19 1053:11 1060:21,22 1062:18 1065:23 1075:4 1093:12 1095:8 1095:18 1097:25 1098:2 1098:7 Commons 1028:6 1047:2 Commonwealth 1100:5 communicate 1043:16 1046:5 1096:11 communicating 1043:21 1096:17 communication 1039:21 1043:18 1044:20,22 1045:14,25 1053:20 1070:9 1074:22 community 1073:9 1075:5 companies
998:14 company 999:17 1007:22 1009:18 1079:24 1090:10 compelled 1085:11 competent 998:15 competition 1081:8 complain 984:8 Complainants 1062:3 complained 981:10 983:21 984:10 990:2 994:8,10 1041:19 1047:14 1055:5 1055:17 1058:7 1072:20 1074:7 1075:7 1083:13 1093:12,19 1101:18,22 complaining 1001:6 1014:23 1022:18 1036:2 complaint 1011:18 1017:16 1061:25 1062:2 1062:4 1063:24 1064:5,6 1073:2 complaints 1008:23 1009:4 1009:22 1044:15 complete 1033:13 1044:9 completely 1005:18 1095:19 complicated 1094:20 comply 1082:23 compulsion 1087:7 computer 1031:6 computers 1058:3 conceivable 1024:24 1025:16 conceivably 996:5 concentrate 1012:17 concept 1039:4 concern 986:12 1004:18 concerned
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
19 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 8 [Page 1108] 1030:19 1031:17 1032:22 1033:14 1036:20,24 1038:7,23 1040:11,14,15 1040:21 1041:3 1046:13 1055:10 1058:5 1061:23 1065:2 defame 1037:18 defence 984:13 988:6 1000:8 1026:4,21,22 1029:3 1039:20 1040:16,20 1041:16,20,25 1044:8 1045:11 1048:21 1049:12 1051:16 1053:6 1053:13 1054:9 1054:10 1057:11 1060:7 1060:19 1065:18,19,25 1071:23,24 1077:2 1081:15 1084:13,13 1087:2 defences 1029:11 defend 1034:5 defendant 980:12 980:21 987:17 989:14 1001:2 1006:18 1009:25 1024:8 1029:2,13 1034:2 1037:16 1037:18 1039:25 1040:4 1040:6,17 1041:18 1053:17 1054:13,16,21 1055:4,19 1057:16 1059:4 1065:24 1071:2 1071:21,22 1080:16,18 1086:14,23 1090:1 1091:1 1092:1 1093:1 1094:1 1095:1 1095:23 1096:1 1097:1 1098:1 1098:16 1100:2 defendants 1006:20 1037:20,24 1038:3 1073:2 1077:7,24 1094:6 1102:3 defendant's 1000:5,14 1059:10 1061:3 defended 982:19 defending 1029:16 1033:19 1083:15 defensive 986:14 define 1098:20 defined 1098:25 defining 1098:21 1098:23 1099:4 1099:4 definitely 1016:24 degree 1069:13 deliberate 996:6 996:23 1087:25 deliberately 991:6 991:8 993:15 995:21 997:18 1005:12 1007:14 1021:3 1102:13 delivered 1055:21 democratic 1042:14 1043:10,22,25 demonstrate 1054:13 demonstrated 985:15 demonstrating 995:16 demotion 1007:9 denial 1027:25 denied 1020:25 1021:8,9 1022:10 1094:9 1094:17 denies 1019:9 Dennis 1033:7 Dental 1058:10 1059:15 1067:16 1069:5 1071:2 denying 999:7 depend 1083:21 depends 1043:22 deploy 989:24 996:6 deployed 997:18 deploying 991:7,8 deposes 1018:10 deprive 996:22 deprived 1044:7 Deputies
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
1026:24 1041:21 conventionally 1044:17 conventions 1043:7 converted 1019:8 copy 981:14 994:22 1031:7 1032:4 1039:8 1059:20 core 1071:7 1072:8 1075:6 1075:11,20 corporate 1039:5 correctly 1038:20 correspondent 1002:7 1081:11 1081:11 1093:6 1093:7 corresponding 1041:22 1044:25 1046:4 1048:19 1062:20 1075:4 1095:8,18 1098:7,19 1099:5 corrupt 987:17 988:17 989:4 990:19 991:10 996:15,21 997:7 1000:6 1035:3 1050:3 1051:3 1056:14 1083:19 1088:24 1097:10 corruption 991:20 995:4,5,7,9,10 999:9 1090:22 corruptly 988:13 992:4 cost 1086:14 costs 996:12,17 1020:21 1083:15,18 1090:3 1103:5 Council 1062:12 1064:7 1099:2 1100:6 counsel 1034:10 1103:4 country 988:5 1073:23 1075:5 1075:23 1080:15,20 couple 1070:20 coupled 1072:2 course 981:24
1005:18 1008:2 1009:8 1011:2 1013:11 1016:2 1029:9 1040:21 1043:2 1048:3 1049:5 1055:13 1057:14 1061:13,22,24 1062:6 1071:12 1071:17 1075:22 1076:7 1077:3,20 1090:5,16 1097:6 1101:3,7 court 980:1,16 982:25 983:3,9 986:20 987:2 1001:24 1005:10,11 1006:4 1007:9 1017:7 1020:20 1029:21 1037:3 1040:10,24 1045:18 1051:21 1055:21 1056:3 1056:7 1059:6 1063:7,8 1066:4 1066:5,13 1067:9 1071:2 1072:4,5 1078:22 1079:7 1085:5,22,25 1086:10 1092:16 1094:25 1095:7 1095:13,14 1096:19 courts 980:2 1044:13 cover 1040:11 coverage 984:2 999:7,12 1002:15 1003:9 1005:21 1011:18 1012:2 1012:13 1013:6 1016:21,25 1017:6,9,15 1018:16 1019:2 1019:3,11,20 1022:9 1024:11 1024:21,23 1093:13,21 cowardly 995:21 co-chair 1081:5 credibility 1090:13 credible 1012:21 crescendo
1056:10 cries 1070:10 crime 1046:18 1085:12 crimes 1044:16 criminal 989:7 993:14 critical 1063:21 1068:16 1078:16 Critically 1055:21 criticism 1014:12 criticisms 1037:21 1074:15 crops 996:12 cross-examinati... 981:6 1016:14 1022:21,23 1089:21 1102:9 cross-examining 1030:10 cross-purposes 1083:9 crystal 993:3 1033:18 1034:9 cuff 1016:3 curiosity 1060:17 curiously 990:15 currently 1013:18 D D 980:23 1006:6 daily 1070:16 damage 990:7 damaged 1042:19 1088:19 damages 990:5,14 1079:2,4,9 1082:7,9 1084:24 1085:21 1086:20 1087:10,15,17 1088:4,5 1101:13 damaging 1025:13 dangerous 1069:3 Daniel 1064:6 Dar 1020:11 1023:15 dare 1079:12 date 993:10 1067:23 1091:4 dated 1024:11 Datoo 1005:24 1006:6,9,17 daughter 1005:17 day 980:23 987:23 987:24 991:2,2 999:17,17,18,19
999:21,22 1009:13 1011:4 1011:9 1016:12 1020:6 1036:11 1051:22 1060:15 1074:2 1084:20 1093:4 days 1013:17 1037:23 1042:10 1065:17 deal 988:23 989:15 998:12 999:6 1008:18 1010:6,16 1012:17 1083:2 1090:21 dealing 1008:10 1099:6 dealt 1009:10 1026:20 1095:7 1101:10 death 1072:17 debased 1043:3 deceive 1024:2 December 992:15 994:10 995:3,15 1006:8,21 1033:12 1034:22 decide 990:24 991:11 1001:15 1002:18 1034:2 1084:7,8 1088:17 decided 1015:6 1036:12 1037:3 1042:11 1054:7 1076:25 1084:7 decides 1092:16 deciding 987:6 1045:8 decision 1076:15 1090:14 1094:15 decisions 1042:14 decisive 1029:19 1051:19 defamation 987:5 989:14 993:16 1015:17 1016:5 1029:24 1044:6 1086:20 1097:3 defamatory 983:21 984:2,4 984:4,15,25 985:24 986:4 992:13,14 1020:14 1023:19 1028:6
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
19 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 8 [Page 1109] 1021:12 1026:9 1029:9 1079:4,22 embarrassed 1063:8 embarrassing 1063:4 Embedded 1010:13 EMLR 1032:24 emphasise 1045:12 emphasised 1093:23 employ 998:15 1042:16 employee 1002:7 1007:6 1093:8 employer 1007:7 employment 1093:6 encapsulates 1066:17 encourage 1004:19 ends 1092:6 enforceability 1087:4 England 1036:16 1080:17 1091:22 1100:8 English 985:8 987:9 995:6 1032:7 1039:12 1039:14 1080:24 enjoined 1081:25 1083:5 enlarge 1028:10 1029:3 1048:15 enlarging 1028:12 enormous 1082:24 enormously 1088:5 enraged 1023:11 enter 1030:15 enterprises 998:12,13 Entertainment 1032:24 enthusiastically 1024:19 entirely 1008:15 1083:21 entitle 1037:18 entitled 1007:20 1031:16 1034:20 1036:22 1038:6 1038:7,9 1056:19,24 1060:5 1061:5 1064:5 1084:15 1085:3,5,15,19 1096:11,14 1099:17 envisage 1087:24 envisaged 1083:10 episode 1090:12 equally 986:23 1050:5 equivalent 1061:6 1063:25 es 1020:12 1023:15 escape 1090:11,15 especially 1042:19 essence 1038:5 1045:11 essential 1045:2 1063:21 essentially 981:22 1000:7 1025:25 1073:8 1088:7 establish 1076:18 1078:13,15 established 1041:15 1066:20,22 1101:8 establishing 1075:15 evaporated 1041:3 event 999:4 1031:22 eventually 994:21 1030:15 1078:8 everybody 1072:24 everybody's 1032:4 evidence 980:23 988:24 989:12 992:10,17,18 997:17 998:2 999:3 1001:4,9 1001:22 1002:6 1002:8,10 1003:4,11,12,17 1003:18 1004:7 1004:13,24 1005:7,10,11,14 1007:13,17 1008:4,19 1010:17 1011:5 1015:4,5,22 1016:12
1073:3,22 1074:12 1075:19 1078:2 derived 990:16 described 1075:24 description 1059:24 designation 1074:19 desire 1083:23 despite 1055:10 destroy 987:18 destructive 1043:25 detailed 1082:12 determination 995:25 determinative 1031:9,10 determine 1070:15 developed 991:2 dicta 1094:3,4 dictum 1044:21 died 1072:17 differ 1039:19 1068:5 difference 984:20 984:20,21 995:18 1077:5 1081:12 different 997:3,8 1003:19 1005:18 1007:19 1010:10 1034:21,22 1043:14 1063:16 1065:23 1082:11 1088:22,24 1095:3 1096:5 difficult 989:6,7 1018:9 1024:5 1033:25 1052:14 1085:9 difficulties 1061:19 difficulty 1077:19 dignity 1042:13 direct 1003:18 1005:21,22 1070:13 1072:11 directed 1060:3 directly 1010:11 1044:6 1059:11 director 998:23 1000:16
1003:12 1005:16 1007:25 1008:11,20 1009:17,21 1010:6 1090:8 1100:5 directors 1007:24 1096:10 disagreed 1069:6 disarray 1033:13 discharge 1054:25 disclosed 1099:25 discord 1006:15 discouraged 1069:4 discourteous 997:17 discrete 1095:19 discuss 1035:22 discussed 1022:9 discussion 1013:18 disgraceful 1006:4 dishonest 985:11 1035:2 dishonesty 981:22 984:18 997:13 dismissed 1007:2 1007:6,24 disproportionate 1034:7 disprove 1077:22 dispute 1000:10 1011:15 1018:2 1051:5,6 1056:21 1064:9 disseminate 1043:20 distinct 983:6 989:23 1097:4,7 1097:15 1098:15 distinction 1074:4 1101:2 dividing 1096:19 division 980:1 1069:12 document 981:11 1006:25 documents 980:24 982:6 doing 996:3 1003:15 1009:25 1030:21 1033:19 1052:22 1068:2 1095:24 doubt
1024:5 1034:17 1065:11 1071:19 1088:8 1096:18 doubts 991:3 dozen 1077:8 Dr 1010:19,23 1011:3,5,14 1013:5,10 1017:2,13 1018:5,6 1023:2 1023:3,6 1024:25 1025:5 1025:16,19,23 1026:6,7 1102:4 drag 1031:5 draw 1062:10 1070:11 drawing 1044:9 drawn 1007:12 1074:25 draws 1045:7 dressing 1033:13 drive 988:19 driven 993:17 Duncan 1063:6,9 1063:13 duties 1062:20 1076:10 duty 1026:24 1039:23 1041:21,22 1044:3,19,23,25 1045:7,21,23 1046:2,4,5,17 1047:8 1053:19 1054:11 1055:6 1070:8 1075:15 1080:19,22 1095:8,12,15,17 1095:24 E E 980:23,23 Eady 1027:14,24 1033:23 1040:8 1059:14 1072:18 1076:16,19 1078:6 1092:18 1099:13 ear 1008:3,5 Eardley 980:19 1023:13 1081:17 1086:3 1089:4,5 1100:14 earlier 1030:11 1035:13 1052:13,21
1099:24 early 984:23 1034:19 earnest 1041:5 earth 1005:20 earthly 1021:4 ease 1024:22 easier 1098:25 East 1074:8 1081:10 easy 1018:8 1083:14,16 1099:3 echo 1056:9 echos 1056:16 edifice 989:9 edition 1027:9 editions 1036:14 1036:14 editor 998:23 1003:13,20 1005:15 1008:20 1018:20,22 editorial 1003:15 1006:19 1007:22 1008:12 editors 1001:16 education 1072:22 effect 981:9 988:12 989:4 990:14 1022:9 1044:18 1069:7 1082:21 1086:8 1096:12 effectively 1030:8 egg 1081:6 egregious 1079:25 either 985:13,23 985:23 986:7 1006:2 1013:17 1015:19 1018:16 1034:4 1038:22 1040:18 1046:5 1057:5 1059:24 1067:21 1070:24 1082:15 1084:14 1085:7 elaboration 982:14 Elder 1050:16 1080:2 electorate 1043:4 elements 1083:19 email 980:17 1080:8 emails
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
19 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 8 [Page 1110] 1000:14 1006:13 1010:16 1011:13 1014:3 1014:14,18,22 1023:16 1024:24 1027:18 1028:11 1029:17,18,25 1032:17,23 1033:25 1036:13 1037:12 1058:21 1067:16,19 1073:7,12 1075:10 1079:5 1079:23 1084:25 1089:19,22 1099:23 1101:2 firstly 1020:13 1023:19 fit 1048:12 fits 1067:4 five 1034:21 1049:16 1091:3 1091:8 flabbergasted 1020:2,13 1022:25 1023:17,18 flavour 1074:11 flew 1004:8 flexible 991:24 flood 1026:17 Floor 980:15 floppy 1053:13 flow 983:12 1074:18 fluoridation 1069:3 focus 1079:15 focused 1074:21 follow 1021:20 1052:24 1053:12 1055:3 1064:25 1065:4 1065:5 1087:20 followers 990:25 following 983:17 1073:13 follows 1021:6 1023:24 1026:8 1037:10 football 1032:20 1033:14 1076:4 footnote 999:16 999:21 forcing 988:4 foregoing 1070:14 1101:20 forensically 998:19 forever 1042:19 forget 1018:8 forgetfulness 985:21 forgive 1027:7 forgot 985:2 forgotten 984:23 1056:13 1081:18 form 985:10 1029:14 1041:21 1044:2 1044:13 1046:16,19 1048:20 1058:5 1082:18,21 1088:21 1095:3 1100:4 former 1032:20 forms 1026:23 1027:5 1033:15 1042:14 1051:10 forth 1006:13 1034:13 1035:25 1036:14 1054:23 1055:23 fortiori 1040:15 fortunately 1027:3 1038:25 1041:8 forum 1081:5 forward 1055:24 1096:22 fought 1003:14 found 986:19 987:19 990:22 1009:2 1023:13 1068:6 1082:2 1084:3 1085:16 1087:6 1088:14 1088:16,22 1094:25 1096:18 1097:12 foundation 1019:16 founded 1039:21 1045:11 1073:8 four 1014:9,15,25 fourth 982:4 frank 1045:14 fray 1030:16 free
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
1017:10 1018:16 1019:22 1021:17,21 1022:13 1024:16,17,20 1026:11 1051:21 1052:6 1057:12 1067:9 1067:12 1077:25 1078:23 1090:7 1090:23 1091:3 1091:9,15,20 1092:24 1093:2 1093:21 1102:8 1102:13,20 evidences 1015:25 evidently 1021:8 exactly 1006:18 1010:3 1057:15 1060:9 exaggeration 1021:16 example 983:9 986:18 1046:17 1049:21,22 1060:14 1062:12 1070:10 1081:12 1083:13 examples 1057:24 Excellency 1006:12 exception 1040:13 1063:14 1072:7 exceptions 1072:5 excessive 1034:7 1059:17 1060:8 1071:4 1078:9 exchange 1016:10 1016:10 excuse 1033:9 1040:11 exemplary 1087:10 exemption 1040:13 exercise 1043:8 1044:9 exhausted 1041:4 exigency 1036:19 exist 1044:18 exists 1026:11 expect 1010:3 1101:20 expecting 1050:8 explanation 1027:25 explicitly
983:10 explore 1012:18 express 1004:18 1101:16 expressed 1102:7 expression 987:16 1043:7 extent 1007:16 1062:4 1084:9 1088:18 1090:24 1098:12 1101:17 external 1009:6 1009:24 1078:9 extracted 1091:4 extraordinary 1007:23 extremely 989:3 eyes 1031:13 e-mail 982:5 1006:6 1049:17 1050:13 1055:10 1056:2 1060:9,10 1100:2 e-mails 988:21 992:23 1050:6 1050:21,23 1055:14 F F 1044:12 facility 1059:10 fact 982:18 983:7 983:22 984:9 985:11 986:6,10 987:6 988:23 990:10 996:4 1002:16 1003:7 1003:23 1006:2 1007:15 1020:11 1033:22 1040:12,14,16 1055:10 1063:21 1064:7 1067:5 1070:12 1077:21 1084:6 1084:14 1088:23 1089:19 1094:25 1097:9 facts 983:7,11,15 983:16,20,21,23 984:10,11 1036:7 1038:18 1038:20 1041:13 1043:24 1047:14 1049:8
1056:9 1086:23 1094:4,19 failed 1033:16 1060:7 1082:5 1084:13 1091:14 fails 984:13 1026:5 1086:21 1102:20 fair 981:9 998:12 1000:13 fairly 1006:4 1027:22 1042:8 1090:13 faithful 1101:23 faithfully 1019:11 fall 1034:8 1072:8 fallen 1007:6 falling 1058:18 false 981:21 984:19 985:6,7 990:6 991:6 996:19,20 1021:24 1082:11 1087:7 falsely 1043:3 falsity 1016:23 familiar 982:7 1031:2 1100:4 1100:11 family 1042:23 famous 1063:16 fans 1034:17 far 993:23 1008:19 1016:11 1024:8 1027:2 1028:15 1033:13 1034:20,23 1043:15 1044:4 1067:11 1069:10 1075:12 1076:21 1077:9 1078:5 1079:19 1085:7 farm 991:21 992:6 993:14 1003:21 1051:6 1056:16 1056:21 1060:13 1075:21 1076:2 1099:7 farms 989:5 1057:4 fate 1074:9 fault 1037:8 favour 1086:6 favourable 999:6 favourite 989:11 fear
1085:10 February 997:20 1009:11,15 1014:15,17 1015:2 1016:18 1052:3 1054:8 feed 1087:23 feel 1063:7 fellow 1056:17,20 felt 1019:13 fictitious 1050:13 fiddle 999:25 fide 1027:21 field 1043:4 1094:4 Fields 1100:3,15 fig 997:15,15 fight 1074:2 figure 999:8 figures 1043:2 1091:4,18,22 file 1006:5 1011:12 1013:20 1090:23 1093:19 final 998:8 1076:15 1101:9 finally 1051:15 1078:25 1097:3 1100:2 find 984:5 1009:23 1016:9 1032:15 1039:7 1050:15 1061:22 1083:14 1087:20 1094:12 1097:9 1097:13,23 finding 986:22,25 987:8 1002:23 1017:18 1082:10 1084:22 1085:5 1086:6 1088:9 1093:14 findings 1078:6 1083:10,11,22 finds 993:11,19 1089:21 1094:12 1097:20 finger 995:12 finished 1048:23 first 982:3,24 983:13 984:4 985:9 986:13 987:25 989:21 994:18 999:22
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
19 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 8 [Page 1111] 1065:11 1068:2 1076:19 1086:10 1098:25 happened 1012:9 1017:18 1018:8 1018:10 1019:9 1034:15 1040:23 1058:23 1060:9 happening 1003:9 happens 1032:10 1042:20 1059:21 1080:13,16 harass 991:9 harassment 1007:15 1020:16 hard 1031:6 heading 987:25 991:14 1045:21 headline 1050:14 1080:2 1100:5 headnote 1054:15 1056:4 1094:13 1095:2,2,3 healthcare 1071:2 hear 998:4 1000:23 1050:11,12 1082:12 1087:14 1089:13 1103:2 heard 1000:22 1001:18 1028:11 1040:5 1048:11 1070:14 1099:19 hearing 996:15 1024:4 1040:3 1050:21 1072:17 hearsay 1003:18 heaven's 1087:24 held 996:13 1044:13 1078:9 1085:22,25 help 995:20 1068:8 1084:6 1087:16 helpful 1089:4 1101:5 helps 1050:15 Hermitage 980:12 984:24 987:12 1014:14 1026:8 1029:5 1030:11 1031:15 1047:15 1050:11 1056:18 1062:21 1067:10 1078:18 1079:18 1080:9 1081:25 1082:22 1083:24 1085:7 1086:18 Hermitage's 981:6 994:16 1031:4 1051:21 1064:17 1075:12 1098:9 Hewitt 1058:9,24 1059:12 1062:9 1063:10 1065:7 1066:2 1067:14 1068:7 1071:15 1072:6,15 1076:13,14 1077:23 1098:7 1099:13 Heytesbury 1037:19 high 980:1 983:25 1012:6,22 1055:7 1087:18 highest 1067:8 highlighting 1052:22 highly 1082:14 hilt 992:20 Hobhouse 1043:13 hold 1080:23 holding 1034:13 1054:21,24 holdings 1037:19 1095:4 home 1019:19 1023:15 hominem 1034:25 honest 1040:17 hope 981:10,13 1032:2 1084:6 Hotspur 1046:9 hour 1100:19 House 980:15 983:2 1028:6 1041:8 1042:10 1047:2 1066:6 HQ10D04585 980:1 huge 992:21 human 1043:6,20 hundreds 1034:17 husband 987:18
1043:17 freedom 1043:7 1096:17 freestanding 1030:6 1049:14 1050:25 fresh 1029:23 1087:10 Friday 989:25 1099:25 1100:9 friend 1089:20 1090:20 1092:6 1093:3,11,14,22 1098:13,22 frivolous 1049:6 front 1064:22 fulfilling 1097:21 full 1026:16 1030:13 1049:8 1085:3 function 1008:12 1036:5 1064:16 fundamental 1042:15 funding 1073:17 funds 1072:21 1073:15 1074:13,18 funneling 1074:13 funny 1037:7 1038:21 further 984:14 1004:21 1029:17 1030:15 1037:25 1040:7 1040:18,20 1083:23 future 1074:9 1082:6,10 G G 980:23 gain 1056:12 gap 992:21 garden 1060:21 Gatley 1027:9 1028:18 Gaza 1072:23 general 983:10 1007:23 1029:4 1044:4 1063:11 1085:14 generality 994:4 gentlemen 1102:22 genuine 1002:15 getting 996:14 1050:24,24 gigantic 999:11 give 986:12 990:4
995:5 998:3 1008:25 1009:20 1014:7 1019:22 1020:10 1034:3 1048:6 1053:24 1057:2 1064:13 1064:21 1069:4 1085:11 1086:25 1100:12,13 1102:18 given 986:9 999:15,16 1003:8 1010:25 1013:23 1014:8 1014:11,12,20 1016:9 1019:19 1020:25 1021:2 1021:4,18 1022:7,8 1023:25 1024:13,22 1025:4 1026:6,7 1030:8 1040:17 1040:21 1044:15 1084:5 1087:21 1090:3 1090:15 1097:20 1102:12 gives 1039:24 1040:2 1052:16 1096:16 giving 996:25 1048:14 glance 1059:22 go 981:3,11 986:14 987:14 994:7,17 1000:4 1003:9,20 1009:6 1010:11 1017:24 1029:14 1030:4 1030:15 1034:16 1038:9 1039:20 1040:8 1040:9 1051:7 1055:18 1069:11 1076:14,21 1079:22 1083:23 goes 993:23 1000:2 1001:16 1013:20 1058:21 1101:5 going 994:19 997:25 1008:16 1022:7 1030:23
1031:2 1032:4,8 1036:17 1042:7 1044:4 1066:3 1067:14 1068:2 1068:11 1071:14 1077:9 1079:3,9 1081:5 1081:18 1084:5 1099:18 1102:20,21 good 981:16 994:21 998:12 999:6 1001:9 1005:8 1021:18 1036:18 1038:6 1042:4,24 1043:5 1064:24 1072:13 1076:6 1089:11 1101:25 Googled 1060:15 got-up 1100:5 governed 1042:5 government 984:2 1064:19,23 1065:14 1088:6 governments 1074:20 grab 987:18 1000:12 1050:3 1050:17 1080:3 granted 1086:7 grateful 1016:16 1025:6 gratuitous 1036:21 1040:22 1050:25 great 1032:7 1090:20 grievance 1002:15 1014:13 Grimwald 1063:10 ground 1011:17 1012:19 1017:15 1018:23 1034:6 1071:24 1072:25 1080:18 1086:9 1093:12 group 1032:18 1058:13,14,22 1058:25 1059:4 1059:5,17,18,23 1065:6,7,10 1070:24 1071:16,19 1072:8 1075:6
1075:11,20,23 1075:25 1076:21,22,23 1077:17 1078:19 1093:2 1098:9,14,18,23 1098:25 groups 1055:5,8 1055:16 1078:19 Grunwald 1058:9 1058:24 1059:12 1062:9 1065:7 1066:2 1067:15 1068:7 1071:15 1072:15 1076:13,14 1077:23 1098:7 1099:13 guarantee 1011:22 guardian 1000:15 1000:17 1002:7 1007:21 1008:12,12,15 1008:18,20,21 1008:23 1009:3 1009:9,10,12,16 1009:21 1010:7 1010:8 1047:16 1052:2 guess 1042:4 1077:25 guiding 1041:15 H Habib 1052:3 half 991:17 992:12 1077:8 1089:14 1100:19 halfway 1037:15 Halpin 1028:21 Hamas 1072:25 1073:25 1074:13,17 Hamilton 1027:23 1079:19 hand 1010:5 1032:3 1097:13 1098:18,18 1099:25 handed 1037:20 handle 1004:8 hands 992:6 1007:20 1010:5 hands-on 998:17 hanging 995:11 happen 1010:4 1018:10
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
19 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 8 [Page 1112] 1079:8 interests 1046:16 1056:22,23 1062:20 1072:10 1076:10 1095:18 1100:23 interfere 1003:14 1005:2,17,20 1006:19 1007:25 1008:16 1010:9 1010:10 interlocutor 1061:17 intermeddler 1095:22 1096:6 intermeddling 1095:23,25 internet 1070:17 1079:8,17 1092:15 Interpal 1072:21 1073:14 1074:13 Interpal's 1073:14 interposed 1080:12 interpretation 987:12 1020:22 interpreter 1054:18 1072:12 Interpreting 1067:6 intertwined 1033:25 intervene 1007:16 1093:20 interviewed 1081:7 intimidate 988:12 988:13 991:9 992:5 intimidated 996:24 1006:3 intimidates 1050:17 1080:2 1100:6 intimidation 987:17 990:19 991:10 993:15 997:7,7 1050:3 1051:3 1056:14 1056:15 1083:19 intimidatory 1035:3 1088:23 introduce 1073:6 introducing 1031:20 introduction 1069:15 introductory 1011:12 invented 1015:14 1079:25 invention 1021:15 invest 1065:15 investigate 1009:5 1009:22 investigative 995:16 investing 1077:16 investment 987:18 988:4 1076:25 1091:2 investor 1065:16 investors 988:5 995:22 1050:17 1080:3 invests 1064:18 invitation 993:5 invite 984:5 987:21 1073:20 1103:5 inviting 993:20 involved 991:20 1000:20 1054:18 1086:14 1090:22 in-chief 1009:14 IPP 993:12 995:3 1002:10 1030:13 1050:10 1052:5 1092:25 IPP's 1010:7 Irish 1028:21 irrelevant 1029:15 isolation 997:5 1087:19 issue 1013:13 1025:10,14 1073:21 1074:21 1079:2 1079:4 1090:4,5 issued 1068:17 issues 1033:24 1055:11 1101:21 italics 1100:6 ITV 998:23 J J 1027:14,24 1033:23
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
1024:9 hypocrisy 986:18 hypothesis 1085:20 I Ian 1079:19 idea 982:9 997:11 1002:21 1003:4 1016:20 1060:13 identifiable 1058:22 1059:5 1059:23 1070:24 1077:17 1078:18 identified 1074:25 1075:6 1094:8 identify 1043:5 1055:4,15 1076:23 identity 1057:12 1063:22 idle 1046:7 1060:17 idly 1077:20 ignore 1032:8 illustration 1041:14 1054:9 immediate 1024:13 1070:13 implemented 1090:14 implications 1090:12 implicit 1085:13 implicitly 983:10 983:16 implies 984:14 importance 1042:23 1072:16 important 999:15 1016:10 1024:21 1025:10,14 1028:5 1029:20 1038:19 1041:6 1041:10 1042:13 1043:15,17 1054:7 1066:16 1069:12 1076:24 1090:9 imports 984:17,17 impossible 986:3 986:4 999:11 1019:6 1058:2,3 1058:6 1078:14
imprinted 1024:12 improper 1008:4 inaccuracies 1035:10 inaccurate 995:21 997:14 1002:3 inappropriate 1101:16 inaudible 1026:9 1033:4 1039:6 1056:11 1070:20 1098:11 incident 1054:24 1059:18 incidental 1065:13 1071:8 1072:7 inclined 1050:18 include 1093:24 1094:11,15 included 1073:15 including 1072:23 incompetence 985:20 incompetent 985:3 inconceivable 1014:22 1019:6 1021:2 inconsequential 1016:3 1018:13 1018:19 1019:4 1093:16 inconsistent 1052:18,19,20 incredulous 1065:9 independent 1030:6 index 1020:3 indicate 1002:17 indicates 983:10 indifference 995:24 indirectly 1000:16 individual 1034:13 1042:13,21,23 1065:20 1094:5 inefficiency 1016:15 inevitable 1067:25 inevitably 1026:8 infer 983:16 1005:11,12 1070:3 1092:16 inference 982:18
982:18 983:14 983:14 1003:23 1007:12 1012:15 1092:21 inferences 1052:6 inferential 983:13 1003:11 information 1035:5,7 1043:16,18,20 1044:15 1045:15 1061:18 1076:11 1085:8 informed 997:5 1043:4,23 info@martenw... 980:17 inhouse 1010:7 initiative 1029:23 1063:2 injunction 1081:22,24 1082:6,16,19,21 1082:23 1083:17,20 1084:15 1085:3 1085:6,10,14,19 1085:21 1086:7 1086:8,22 1101:23 injunctions 1081:19 1085:13 1086:7 1086:11 injury 1092:17 innocent 1094:16 inquire 1034:7 insincere 985:16 986:10 insist 1098:22 instances 1044:14 instant 1095:4 instructed 980:19 980:20 instructions 1000:22 1003:9 integral 1042:13 integrity 1067:7 intended 985:15 intention 981:23 985:14 986:6 996:20 1097:21 intentional 985:5 997:12 intentionality 992:25 intents 1066:15 interest 1005:22
1009:25 1012:7 1026:24 1035:5 1039:23,24 1040:3,5,18,20 1040:20 1041:2 1041:22,22 1042:25 1043:21 1044:3 1044:20,23,25 1045:7,10,13,19 1045:23 1046:2 1046:4,6,6,7,7,9 1046:9,11,12,12 1046:14,18 1047:8 1048:5 1048:14,19 1050:20 1053:15,20 1054:11,14 1055:6,7,9,17 1055:23 1057:3 1057:17,18,22 1057:25 1058:18,25 1059:6,19,25 1060:16,17,18 1060:22 1061:18 1064:2 1064:13 1065:16,24 1067:2 1070:6,8 1070:25 1071:20,25 1072:11 1074:24 1075:4 1075:15,23 1078:4,19 1080:7,19,21 1081:4,8,14,14 1091:10 1092:22 1095:9 1095:17 1096:3 1096:13,16,25 1097:2 1098:8 1098:17,19,21 1099:5,10,12 interested 996:18 1046:8 1056:21 1058:14,22 1059:5,22 1060:4 1064:10 1064:11,11 1065:12 1075:11 1076:2 1076:3 1077:20 1077:20 1081:13,22 1096:17 interesting 996:11 1064:12 1076:8
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
19 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 8 [Page 1113] 1037:11 1038:22 1042:2 1049:2,6 1050:14,15 1052:14,15 1057:24 1058:3 1058:13 1062:2 1062:7 1074:8 1075:14,17,25 1076:19 1078:10,11 1080:4,10 1082:16 1083:2 1085:24 1087:11 1091:25 1092:5 1092:8 1099:11 knowing 1021:25 1081:5 knowingly 1097:10 known 984:18 1026:9 1041:14 1060:11 1071:17 knows 982:12 1041:17 1056:4 1062:22 1068:12 1072:24 1079:18,19 1094:22 L label 1077:15 lack 1086:2 lacking 1011:16 land 993:18 996:8 996:22 1003:24 1057:22 1088:24 lands 1032:11 land-grabbing 991:10 996:16 Lane 980:16 language 987:10 large 1033:16 1041:16 1048:9 1060:6,20 1062:7 1065:20 1071:25 1084:10 1092:19 late 996:12 1091:5 latest 994:17 1027:9 latitude 987:3 1094:18 law 981:17 982:23 1015:17 1026:2 1026:25 1027:4 1027:24 1031:9 1032:24 1035:16 1039:13 1040:12,24 1041:5 1042:5 1043:9 1044:5,6 1044:11 1045:4 1045:15,17 1053:11,19 1060:22 1062:13,18 1063:24 1064:3 1065:9,23 1076:20 1080:24 1081:15 1084:17 1085:11 1087:7 1097:25 1098:2 Lawton 1028:15 1028:22 lawyer 1009:24 1010:7 lawyers 1009:6 law's 1045:12 lay 992:6 Leader 1050:16 1080:2 Leaders 1079:24 leading 1042:8 leap 999:11 learned 1068:20 1074:24 1089:20 1090:20 1092:6 1093:3,11,14,22 1098:13,22 lease 1020:17 leave 990:23 1048:22 1051:15 1067:13 1102:21 leaves 998:17 leaving 1020:18 1020:18 1048:19 Leeds 1032:21 1033:10 1034:16 1046:8 left 1007:9 1033:13 1081:20 1082:14 legal 1009:6 1020:20 1044:23 1046:2 1047:8 1095:15 1095:24 legitimate
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
1038:16 1040:8 1076:16,19 1092:18 1095:10 1099:13 1102:10,12 Jackson 995:11 Jameel 1091:14 JAMES 980:20 January 987:20 988:16 991:11 1014:16 1015:12 1049:23 1050:3 1091:3 jeopardising 1074:7 Jewish 1073:9 1075:5 1078:3 Jewry 1098:10 Jews 1073:3,11,22 1074:3,13 1078:8 1098:24 job 1007:8 1068:2 joint 1068:22 jolly 1066:25 JONATHAN 980:20 Joseph 983:3 journal 1058:10 1059:15,20 1069:5 journalism 995:16 997:14 1001:23 1072:2 1088:10 1088:16 journalist 1088:24 journalistic 995:17,23,23 996:15 1000:11 1030:17 journalistically 1000:21 journalists 1068:21 1081:6 Joyce 998:20 judge 1027:24 1037:3 1069:21 1070:21 1074:24 1084:6 1094:24 1095:4 1095:7,11 1099:19 judges 987:4 1041:9 judge's 1068:9 judgment 1042:9 1053:11 1055:20
1070:21 1073:6 1074:2 1087:23 1095:12,13 1101:11,14 1102:10 1103:4 1103:7 judgments 1055:3 1079:7 1095:9 July 1004:25 jump 1016:22 1054:21 1093:8 1093:9 June 993:9 995:19 1004:25 1006:9 1007:2,4,5 Juries 987:3 jurisdiction 1073:9 1101:22 jury 982:14 986:19,25 990:4 1088:13 Justice 980:1,2,6 981:2,15 983:23 984:7 985:13,22 986:2 989:18 990:9,15 991:11 991:14,19 992:9 993:20 994:12 994:24 995:8 997:2,10 998:24 999:20 1000:18 1000:20 1001:3 1001:8,11,13,18 1001:25 1002:4 1002:18,23 1004:3,5,10,12 1004:15 1006:11 1007:2 1007:5 1008:5,7 1010:12 1011:10 1013:2 1015:9,14,16,20 1016:13 1017:12,14,18 1017:21,24 1018:18,24 1019:22 1020:2 1020:5 1021:20 1022:4,12 1023:13,22 1024:3 1026:12 1026:16,19 1027:10,12,17 1028:12,24 1031:9 1032:6 1032:12 1033:2 1035:12,16,19 1036:7 1037:2 1037:14 1038:11,16,18
1038:23 1039:3 1039:10,16 1041:12 1045:21 1046:21,25 1047:5,7,13,18 1047:24 1048:23,25 1049:5 1051:9 1051:12,18,23 1053:5,24 1054:3,5 1056:5 1057:2,7,14,18 1057:21 1058:2 1058:12,16 1059:8,14 1060:24 1061:6 1061:9,19 1062:8 1063:6 1063:10 1064:17,25 1065:5 1066:2,7 1066:9,11 1067:20,24 1069:9,14,16 1072:18 1075:16,19 1076:2,5,13 1077:4,7,12,23 1078:11,14,24 1079:14 1081:21 1082:12,24 1083:4,14 1084:12 1085:18 1086:12,16 1087:12,16 1089:3,6,13 1090:4,17 1091:6,24 1092:4,11 1093:5 1094:13 1096:6,9,22 1097:5,25 1098:5 1099:15 1099:17,21 1100:11,17 1102:16,22,25 1103:3 justification 989:17 997:24 1000:5 1019:4 1026:5 1069:21 1069:23 1073:19,25 1082:5 1084:13 1086:18 1097:17,17 justified 983:22
1019:13 1081:10 justifies 1027:24 justify 1095:25 1097:22 justifying 1036:20 J's 1078:6 K Kabendera 1003:18 Kass 1098:13 Kaul 1100:3 1102:4 Kearns 1079:6 1100:19 keep 984:22 986:5 989:5 996:17 1091:12 1093:16 1095:20 keeping 985:14 986:7 996:21 Ken 1032:22 Kenyan 1081:6 kept 1056:13 Kevin 1032:22 1033:8 Kikwete 988:3 Kikwete's 1090:25 Kimambo 995:11 1000:22,23,24 1001:11,22 1002:6 1007:11 1092:25 Kimambo's 1001:19 kind 983:18 995:23 1011:16 1012:10,23 1022:11 1048:19 1049:24,25 1052:21 1059:5 1060:22 1064:8 1075:23 1080:25 1084:11 1088:4 1098:15 knew 985:7 992:13,17,18 996:20 1000:9 1007:17 1061:15 1100:21 know 1000:2 1001:13 1014:3 1016:20 1024:18 1036:16 1037:6
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
19 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 8 [Page 1114] 1100:14 1101:8 1101:11,24 Lordship's 992:2 1044:10 1079:6 1083:22 1088:25 1089:17 1092:24 lose 1035:22 1036:12 1085:23 loser 1042:21 loses 1086:18 lost 1016:16 1025:2 1033:12 1058:20 lot 997:21 1001:18 1026:25 1027:7 1088:21 luck 1064:24 Luhanga 1001:18 1001:22 1002:21 Lutheran 1050:13 1050:16 1062:25 1080:2 1080:11,12,13 lying 981:21 986:22,25 991:5 991:7 1019:5 1021:19 1029:25 1053:4 1080:15 1088:6 1088:11,14,17 1088:18 M machete 991:22 main 1017:25 maintain 1101:3 maintained 1073:4 maintaining 1064:20 majority 1078:2,6 1098:11 maker 1044:19 1045:6,16 Makin 1053:22 1060:25 1094:23 1095:21 1096:20 making 981:21,22 993:17 1033:9 1037:13 1044:20 1065:2 1069:6 Malasusa's 1080:5 malice 1015:16 1026:11 1045:20 1054:20 1063:17 1085:23 1087:2 malicious 1085:17 malign 1000:6 maligned 1001:20 malignly 1088:23 man 989:8 990:3 998:11 1001:19 1027:24 1028:15,22 1038:10 1039:11 management 998:17 1101:19 manager 1032:21 1033:8,14 managing 998:23 998:23 1003:20 1008:19 1009:20 March 993:8 996:13 997:20 1008:13 1015:3 1037:21,24 1055:19 marks 1014:5 Marten 980:15 match 985:19 material 1009:9 1074:22 matter 983:5 984:9 985:11 986:10 991:3 997:15,17 1002:18 1005:6 1005:9 1006:13 1008:15 1009:12,23 1010:8,9 1011:20 1013:9 1021:11 1022:11 1028:3 1031:12 1039:8 1042:22 1056:19 1062:17 1070:8 1073:19 1078:12 1080:19 1087:3 1088:7,22 1093:5 1094:14 1099:3 1101:19 matters 993:8 997:14 1004:8 1006:20 1029:15
1054:14 1055:6 1071:20 1072:11 Lema 1052:6 length 981:4,6 lengthy 1073:19 lesser 989:25 letter 1007:2,4,5 1008:19 1009:7 1009:11,11,14 1009:21 1010:5 1011:4 1012:12 1013:8,15,16,21 1013:22 1014:23 1021:14 1024:11 1025:3 1025:23 1028:8 1044:12 1047:3 1047:7 1100:3 1100:15 letters 997:16,20 1008:10,13 1015:2 let's 1015:10 1016:21 1017:14 1089:13 level 1064:20 1067:8 levelled 1004:18 liability 1082:15 1082:16,18 1083:12 liable 989:19 1038:14 1067:7 1068:13 1082:2 liar 1030:17 1038:8,10 libel 1030:6 1084:17 1086:13 libelous 1013:24 1027:25 liberal 1096:17 liberty 1043:16,19 library 1059:21 1071:3 lie 982:15,15 984:18 985:5,8 985:18 996:9 1021:19 1054:11 1056:14 1087:21 lied 982:13 984:3 984:8,14,16 985:10,11,13,17 986:6 989:2 1019:13
1021:13 lies 1015:9,17 1045:11 1051:3 1102:21 life 993:17 1061:23 light 1049:11 1077:8 1100:22 1101:20 1103:7 lightly 986:12 1040:11 limb 1035:6 1048:18 1084:14 limited 1032:18 1057:21 1090:9 1090:10 1099:7 Lincoln 1064:6 line 990:25 1009:19 1016:17 1020:7 1052:25 1069:11,17 1070:2,3 1071:12 1090:11,15 lines 1093:4 list 1102:11 literal-minded 991:25 992:3 little 988:7 990:24 992:17 1016:22 1020:24 1044:9 1067:22 1092:22 1101:20 live 1001:21 living 1027:2 1045:3 LJ 1055:21 1100:24 1101:4 1101:4 local 1057:6 London 980:3,16 1080:18 long 1005:25 1018:3 1038:25 1050:9 1055:24 longer 993:8 1025:7 1031:18 1052:5 look 991:16,16 994:22 1004:16 1004:16 1005:24 1006:5 1009:14 1010:14,21 1012:2 1013:6,9 1013:9,14 1016:3,21,25,25
1017:5,9,14 1019:8 1020:23 1021:11 1022:11 1024:16 1027:8 1035:11 1037:4 1038:18 1039:11 1051:16 1053:21 1062:8 1066:2,12 1073:24 1077:16 1090:23 1093:18 1098:15 looked 1058:19 1100:20 looking 987:21 990:8 1000:18 1004:15 1021:21 1037:11 1067:22 1091:2 1098:16 1100:23 looks 1020:3 1065:9 1100:11 1101:24 loose 1041:7 Lord 981:3 982:22 987:14 999:18 1006:12 1016:23,24 1020:10 1023:16 1026:20 1028:5 1032:15,20 1034:5 1036:15 1039:19 1041:5 1042:9,12 1043:13 1044:20 1045:4 1045:24 1046:22 1048:4 1048:13 1051:7 1051:15,22 1053:9,11 1055:2 1058:8 1063:17 1066:14,20 1067:4 1068:12 1069:12 1070:5 1071:11 1072:6 1072:15 1073:3 1074:14 1075:10 1083:10 1089:5 1089:10,16 1098:4 1099:16
1101:23 Lords 983:2 1041:8 1042:10 1066:6 Lordship 981:5 981:10,13,13,19 982:6,11 986:8 987:21 989:16 990:24 993:3,9 997:6 998:2,4,5 998:10,22 1002:20 1005:24 1006:5 1006:8 1008:18 1008:25 1009:15 1010:20 1011:4 1011:11 1016:10,17 1020:8 1023:5 1024:4 1026:21 1027:7,8,15 1028:16 1030:10 1032:3 1032:14,14 1035:11 1040:12 1041:6 1041:10,17 1043:12 1049:7 1051:16 1053:9 1053:21 1054:2 1054:17 1056:4 1058:9 1059:9 1060:14 1065:8 1065:9,22 1066:15 1068:12 1069:25 1073:5 1073:20,24 1075:2,24 1079:7,12,23 1080:11 1082:6 1083:10,11 1084:2,5,6 1085:15 1087:20 1088:7 1088:12,16,17 1088:22 1089:11,23,25 1090:6,18,19,22 1090:24 1091:10,12,21 1092:22 1093:11,13,16 1093:18 1094:5 1094:8,22,24 1095:6,9 1097:9 1097:12,13,16 1097:20,23 1099:14
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
19 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 8 [Page 1115] 1043:24 misled 1021:3 misremembering 1097:24 missing 1063:21 mistake 1015:18 mis-describe 983:19 modern 1027:4 1054:7 1063:25 modernist 1067:18 Mohan 1102:4 moment 986:24 988:22 995:9 1003:6 1008:10 1010:12 1026:2 1029:10 1032:15 1040:12 1051:12 1053:24 1059:13 1072:6 1076:20 1078:25 1089:11 Monday 980:4 month 1036:11 months 1006:10 1014:9,25 month's 994:15 moral 1044:23 1046:2 1047:8 1095:15,24 morning 1016:15 1066:15 Mosher 1090:8,16 Moshi 1003:25 1093:7 motion 1009:4 1055:20 mouth 1084:21 move 1062:10 moves 998:16 moving 1051:9 1064:13 1093:22 muddled 1037:6 murder 989:7 990:6 murderer 990:3,4 990:10 Murphy 1028:21 Muslims 1074:2 N N 980:23 name 1003:5 1030:5 1059:24 1064:22 named 1058:23 1059:4 1070:24 1072:19 1075:10 names 1058:14 1060:10 1071:17 1102:18 nastiness 1080:25 national 1042:18 1070:16 natural 1012:15 1014:19 nature 984:4 1035:5 1038:24 1053:10 1054:9 1054:10,10 near 1006:24 1077:9 nearly 1013:11 1049:7 necessarily 984:17 1029:9 1051:19 necessary 1001:12 1029:16 1034:6 1043:9 1047:23 1060:20 1077:24 1094:11,15 necessity 1093:23 need 982:5 987:24 1009:5 1026:20 1027:6 1030:15 1030:18 1040:25 1041:13 1045:7 1045:12,13 1048:4,4,20 1063:12 1070:11 1079:10,22 1080:6 1089:10 1093:24 needed 1096:3 needs 1001:9 1024:16 1043:5 1094:3 1095:20 negatives 1000:25 negligence 985:20 995:25 Neill 1063:6,9,14 neither 1048:15 1085:2 neutral 1051:25 never 997:13 1000:21,22 1002:2 1010:5 1015:13 1018:20 1019:18,20
1065:16 1068:14 1103:6 Mauggo 1002:20 1093:3,4 mayor 1039:5 Mbono 1057:4 mean 986:6 987:13 995:6 1006:23 1046:6 1046:7 1049:2,4 1053:19 1081:13 1083:24 meaning 981:4 985:8,17 987:4 987:5 991:19 995:6 1083:11 1083:13,22 meanings 982:8 1083:12 1084:7 1084:7,9 means 985:6 991:12 992:3 997:9 1021:14 1028:8 1029:8 1045:17 1101:13 meant 987:13 1016:8,8 1044:10 1046:11 mechanism 1008:23 1009:4 media 993:12 995:4 1016:25 1017:15 1020:14 1023:19 1032:24 1062:25 1065:19 1090:8 1090:10 mediator 1025:23 medical 1050:7 1068:21,22 1079:25 meeting 992:15 997:25 1007:23 1010:18 1011:9 1012:4,8,17,19 1013:12,13 1014:10 1017:11,25 1018:3 1020:9 1020:11,18,18 1021:24 1022:9 1023:15,24 1024:7,9,22 1025:16,21 1048:10,12
1087:18 1093:10 1097:12,14,21 member 982:8 1028:7 1063:24 1080:17 1096:7 members 1043:23 1056:17,24 1061:3 1062:12 1062:13 1096:12 1098:24 1099:2 memory 994:21 1025:15 Mengi 980:9 981:24 985:11 985:12 988:12 988:18 990:20 991:21 992:4,13 993:2,13 995:3 995:20 996:3,20 997:7,15,18 998:10,20 1000:11,25 1001:5 1002:17 1002:22 1003:5 1003:8,14,19 1004:20,24 1005:12 1006:3 1006:19,23 1007:14 1008:22 1009:7 1010:2,15,18,19 1011:2,18,20,25 1012:3,9,20 1013:13,16 1014:20 1015:8 1015:19 1016:2 1017:13 1018:3 1018:12,15 1019:10,13 1021:6,8,13 1022:5,10,20,20 1023:5 1025:4 1025:16,22 1030:17,18 1036:5 1043:2 1050:12,16 1051:5 1053:4 1060:15 1061:7 1061:8,13,22 1075:10 1080:10 1081:5 1081:7 1083:18 1085:23 1087:21 1088:2 1089:22 1090:2 1090:10 1091:12 1093:15,17
1097:9,21 1102:11,18 Mengis 992:8 1090:21 Mengi's 986:12 989:8 995:11 998:6 1001:14 1002:22 1004:6 1005:16 1010:4 1023:4 1024:12 1029:7 1031:14 1034:24 1049:24 1051:2 1064:15,22 1067:7 1081:9 1090:11 1093:21 1101:24 1102:8 mention 982:20 989:13 1004:22 1004:23 1012:13 1013:16 1030:18 1089:24 1100:18 1101:9 mentioned 1011:23 1012:15 1016:18 1018:2 1033:22 1041:24 1102:6 mentioning 1015:3 mentions 1014:18 mere 987:2 1003:23 1044:5 merely 1023:2 1037:25 1041:14 1092:19 message 1067:10 met 1057:11 methodology 1071:11 Mhaville 998:20 microscope 1001:24 Middle 1074:7 Middleton 1010:18,19 1011:13,15,17 1012:20 1013:22 1014:20 1015:6 1015:22 1016:6 1016:19 1017:4 1017:16 1018:7 1018:13,14,14 1019:6,17,19
1021:22 1022:2 1022:6,12,19,23 1023:8,10,11,14 1025:14 1047:15 1056:19 1090:2 1093:12,19,24 1097:24 Middletons 988:14,19 989:5 991:9 992:5 993:16 996:7,24 1000:7 1001:6 1002:15 1005:13 1007:15 1016:11 1019:10 1024:23 1025:10,13,22 1031:15 1056:15 1083:15 Middleton's 996:12 1011:5 1017:10 1021:17 1022:14 mid-June 993:7 million 1057:9 mind 981:7 985:6 985:12 986:8 988:21 992:3 993:6 994:6 997:13,19 998:5 1049:13 1063:5 1064:19,19 1070:18 1074:12 1089:2 1090:19 1091:12 1092:11 1093:16 1095:20 1099:20,23 1101:5 mine 1053:25 minute 1005:24 1065:9 1079:5 minutes 1089:8,10 1089:17 mirth 1038:22 mischief 995:13 misconducting 983:17 misinformation 1043:19,22 misinformed 1043:24 1044:4 Misleading
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
19 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 8 [Page 1116] 1000:15,15 1003:24,24 1007:15 1032:21 ownership 1088:10 o'clock 1049:7 1051:8,13 P P 980:23 page 981:19 982:25 987:14 987:15,15,20 989:16 990:8 991:15,17 993:10,10,11 994:8,19 995:3 995:13 998:7,10 999:16,17 1000:5 1004:17 1006:11 1009:13,19 1011:12 1014:6 1020:6 1022:24 1023:17 1027:9 1027:18 1028:18 1032:16,23 1037:10,10,11 1039:11 1042:7 1042:12 1043:12,14 1044:12 1045:5 1048:13 1049:9 1049:10 1051:22 1052:24 1053:12 1054:24 1055:25 1063:19 1066:16 1068:19,19,20 1069:11,17,22 1071:11 1073:7 1074:21 1090:23 1093:4 1093:19 pages 1037:5 1039:11 1079:15 1083:4 pagination 1037:5 paid 998:21,24 Palestine 1072:22 paper 1014:13 1041:7,8,10 1068:22,23 1091:18 papers 1001:14 1049:24 1068:22 paragraph 982:24 988:2 998:7 1000:14,18 1004:17 1006:18 1010:25 1011:13,16,25 1014:4 1023:7 1027:9,12,16 1028:19 1032:17 1033:5 1033:17,23 1037:15 1047:25 1049:9 1049:10 1055:18,18,25 1056:6 1063:5,8 1063:9 1066:4,7 1066:13,16 1073:6,7,12,15 1073:24 1074:6 1074:14,20 1092:10,13,14 1093:17 1095:2 1095:10,11,13 1095:14 1100:19,24 1101:15,24 1102:7 paragraphs 987:25 995:14 1006:13 1042:8 1049:20 1079:12,12,16 pardon 1026:15 parliament 1028:8 1047:11 part 1007:18 1032:11 1035:13,20 1042:13 1044:2 1073:25 1086:21 1092:25 1097:18 1099:9 participating 1083:19 participation 1068:8 particular 981:18 1031:22 1039:21,22,22 1045:13,14,15 1048:3,4,7,7 1050:2 1056:11 1061:14 1065:10 1072:23 1073:10 1076:9
1024:13 1026:7 1049:2 1072:16 1092:11 1099:19 new 988:10 1037:25 news 1020:10 1032:18 1037:24 1038:4 1092:25 newspaper 994:3 994:20 996:7 999:13 1001:7 1003:12,24 1011:18 1012:3 1012:10,13 1024:21 1025:7 1028:8 1031:15 1032:18 1033:7 1035:3 1042:18 1062:3 1070:16 1088:10 newspapers 984:3 986:13 988:12 988:13 991:8,8 992:15,25 993:2 994:14 996:4,23 997:19 998:7,18 999:5,7 1000:2 1000:7,9 1001:16 1003:14 1012:11 1013:19 1029:4 1029:7 1032:18 1034:24 1035:9 1036:13 1062:4 1064:15 newspaper's 1064:11 newsworthy 999:9 Nguma 1005:16 1008:14,20 1009:10 1010:6 1010:6 1014:2 Nguma's 1008:19 nice 988:7 995:10 Nicholls 1042:9 1042:12 1048:4 1048:13 1053:11 Nicholl's 1066:14 Nicol 1089:22 1090:6,8 Nigel 1094:7,16 Nipashe 1047:16 1052:2 NL 1009:12 non 1077:12,14 non-committal
1016:3 1018:13 non-interference 1013:4 normal 1040:14 1082:18,21 note 998:2 999:18 1008:14 1012:8 1024:25 1054:17 1055:25 1070:23 1092:24 noted 981:5 notes 980:15 1011:6,7,7 1025:2 notice 998:25 1023:5 1066:13 noticed 1094:24 notwithstanding 1070:6 November 980:4 nowadays 1005:4 1012:16 number 998:4,12 1034:14 1082:3 1082:4 1090:20 1090:25 1092:20 1093:23 1094:20 1101:25 numbers 983:5 1032:8 1060:6 1091:25 1099:8 O O 980:23 objected 1034:20 objection 1031:23 1031:23 1052:11 objectionable 1014:16 objective 982:10 987:11 1051:20 oblige 1005:14 obscure 1045:9 observe 1056:9 observed 1059:9 1059:14 1060:14 1080:11 observing 1068:19 obtain 1086:22 obvious 1049:23 1062:20 1070:10,13 1086:13 obviously 993:24
997:20 1005:23 1033:14 1073:22 1075:10 1082:7 occasion 1004:25 1031:11 1034:3 1036:19 1038:10 1039:22,23 1041:4 1044:21 1044:22 1045:9 1070:4 occasionally 982:17 occasions 982:17 1034:21,22 1076:11 October 1101:12 odd 1039:4 offending 1074:22 offer 1023:4 offered 1025:22 offering 1013:18 office 1054:25 1067:4 officious 1095:22 off-the-peg 1062:18 Oh 1008:2 1012:9 1020:23 1050:9 1050:14 old 994:22 1020:17 1028:9 1028:14 1042:5 1053:2,14 1065:17 1079:19 older 1027:15 1067:22 once 981:4,5 982:16 1030:7 1035:16,17 1036:9 1038:10 1040:5,7,17 1041:6 1042:17 1058:22 1084:7 ones 1067:22 1082:2 oneself 1014:8,11 one's 1012:14,14 1042:20 1044:7 1100:23 onus 1091:15 1099:11 onwards 1032:8 1034:23 open 998:10 1038:3 opening 981:5,14 1024:17 openly
995:4,4,7 opportunity 998:9 1013:21 1016:6 1019:7 1020:24 1042:20 1048:14 opposite 999:21 1088:9 optimistically 1024:19 oral 1004:12 orchestrated 1005:13 1007:14 1035:2 orchestrating 993:15 orchestration 1088:2 order 987:18 1000:12 1005:13 1029:13 1038:2 1041:20 1043:4 1050:17 1068:18 1070:15 1080:3 1082:19 ordered 1081:25 ordinarily 995:6 ordinary 982:8 985:7 991:24 1041:21 1051:7 1081:13 organisations 1073:16,17 original 986:10 1031:13 1036:22 1039:7 1046:15,25 1047:11 1048:8 originally 1036:2 1048:12 orthodox 1039:20 ought 1008:23 oust 1056:15 outcome 1069:25 1096:4 outside 1034:8 1058:24 1075:3 1075:5 1076:22 1091:7 1099:12 1099:21 overheard 1003:19 overseas 1064:20 overwhelming 1087:8 1098:11 over-suspicious 991:25 owned 1090:10 owner
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
19 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 8 [Page 1117] 988:8 1011:20 1016:2 1018:5,12 1024:6 1026:4 1050:6 1061:23 1067:8 1086:14 1093:15 1103:5 possibly 1002:17 posting 987:19,23 987:24 991:11 993:10 994:9,10 994:17 995:14 996:13 1049:23 1050:2 1092:19 postings 984:23 986:4 1021:12 1030:11 1034:19 1035:8 1073:12 poverty 1072:22 power 992:5 996:7 1003:13 1007:22,24 practical 1087:3 precisely 994:8 1020:8 1060:11 1060:22 1067:5 prefer 1089:9 preliminary 1013:18 premise 1070:24 premises 986:11 preparation 1079:2 prepared 980:24 1004:21 prescribed 1043:9 present 983:23 1028:25 1046:22 1047:14 1066:18 1073:20 1090:3 President 988:3 press 1024:10 1037:21 pressing 1070:5 pressure 1015:7 presume 1092:9 presumed 1098:10 presumption 1092:7,14 pretty 999:2 1042:3 previous 1004:25 pre-existing 1062:11,16,24 1063:12 1064:4 1101:8 Price 980:20 989:24 992:12 1002:10 1003:2 1007:20 1027:3 1028:18 1037:10 1041:24 1045:3 1068:3 1084:20 1088:8 1089:6 1089:10,16 1090:5,18 1091:9,17,20 1092:3,6,13 1093:8 1094:14 1096:8,11,24 1097:6 1098:2 1098:12 1099:21 1100:22 1101:3 1102:15,20 Price's 982:19 989:10 992:20 993:4 primarily 1033:21 primary 1059:3 prime 1044:14 principal 1012:18 principle 1027:19 1044:17 principles 983:12 1041:15 1070:19 1091:14 print 1012:11 1031:7 1080:16 printed 992:22 printing 1020:14 1023:19 prints 1031:17 privacy 1061:12 private 1028:25 1044:6 privilege 981:18 1009:17 1026:2 1026:22,23,25 1027:5 1029:14 1030:9 1033:15 1034:3,8 1035:6 1036:21,23 1037:18 1039:20 1040:7 1040:9,13 1041:18,18,22 1041:23 1042:6 1044:8,11 1045:11,22 1046:19 1047:19 1048:11,18 1051:8,10
1076:10,10,11 1076:11,12 1086:18,25 1096:25 1099:10 particularly 998:18 1037:7 1038:21 1040:19 1071:5 1094:22 parties 1017:24 1045:8 1061:15 partly 1060:4,6 1069:4 parts 981:17 988:9,11 1084:10 party 988:18 992:7 pass 1067:13 1068:18 1079:9 1095:15 passage 1022:16 1029:18 1030:24 1066:6 1066:14 passages 986:16 1051:17 passed 1012:17 1021:11 passers-by 1071:3 passing 1012:16 1016:2 1041:24 1055:25 1066:13 patient 1032:14 pause 1010:12 1039:2,8 1051:12 1055:2 1056:8 1070:23 1100:16 pausing 994:12 1026:12 pay 1083:15,18 payable 1087:18 paying 996:12,17 1090:2 peace 1074:8 pen 1014:12 penultimate 1016:12 1028:19 people 985:3 992:2 996:2 998:15 999:12 1003:7 1008:22 1009:3 1028:11 1043:24 1046:14,15 1048:14
1052:11 1053:18 1056:21,22,23 1057:3,25 1060:3,5,6,25 1061:10 1065:11 1069:4 1070:14 1071:17 1072:9 1075:4,23 1076:2,11,12 1077:8 1078:7 1078:21 1079:16 1080:7 1081:3,13 1099:8,10,12 percent 1089:23 perfect 1048:12 perfectly 986:4 999:6 1031:16 1033:23 1038:6 1039:19 1055:2 1084:11 1096:14 perform 1064:16 performance 1076:10 1080:22 period 994:3 perjury 1015:17 permission 1089:17 1103:6 perpetrated 1073:10 persist 1092:21 persisted 1006:3 person 986:5 1011:6 1027:19 1029:25 1034:4 1039:22 1044:22,24,24 1045:25 1046:3 1046:3,6 1061:16 1070:6 1096:2,15 personal 1036:5 1067:7 1068:12 1096:16 personally 991:21 997:16 1013:23 1014:5 persons 1029:2 1055:4,5 1057:17,18,21 1058:25 1059:5 1059:24 1060:8 1070:24 1075:3 1077:18 1078:19 1095:16
1096:18 1102:6 persuade 1065:14 perverse 986:21 987:3 phone 1019:22 1022:13 1023:14 phoned 1020:11 phooey 1050:19 physical 997:8 pick 1065:11 1089:18 picked 1089:24 picks 1059:20 picture 995:10 piece 988:7 993:6 1040:24 1041:7 1041:8 1068:20 pieces 993:6 1026:10 ping-pong 1035:23 pithy 1053:10 pity 984:22 place 994:18 1008:24 1033:17 1036:24 1043:17 1052:20 1071:7 1090:7 1092:17 1095:17 places 1090:20 plagiarist 1094:8 plain 987:10,12 988:22 1061:17 plainly 986:15,18 986:20 992:7 1013:14 1025:15 1029:17 1051:4 1053:5 plaintiff 1047:9 1068:10 platform 1053:3 play 1088:12 plea 1069:20 1073:19,25 plead 1077:2 1092:19 pleaded 989:14 1060:21,22 pleading 1005:4,6 1074:15 pleadings 1004:16 pleasantries 1011:13 please 1020:8 1027:16 1032:14
1035:19 1042:7 1043:12 1044:11 1049:7 1053:21 1069:11 pleased 1103:2 pluck 993:24 pocked 1000:24 Pocock 1010:19 1010:23 1011:3 1011:5,14 1012:12 1013:5 1017:2,13 1018:5,6 1023:2 1023:3 1024:25 1025:5,16,19 1026:6,7 1090:3 1093:11 1097:12,14 Pocock's 1013:10 1023:6 1025:23 point 986:13 989:21 994:8 1013:2 1018:6 1036:7,15,21 1037:13 1052:17 1056:7 1071:22,23 1090:6,17 1091:9,23,24 1093:10,18,21 1094:13,21 1095:20,25 pointed 1066:24 1067:3 points 981:12 1089:18,18 1093:23 poison 1079:19 pole 1061:16 police 1044:15 1046:18 1057:6 1057:22 1061:25 policy 1013:4 political 1043:3 poor 1001:19 Porter 990:16 position 986:12 989:8 993:23 1000:15 1008:16 1011:7 1011:19 1037:22 1045:8 1050:15 1056:11 1084:19 possession 1085:7 possibility 1020:24 possible
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
19 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 8 [Page 1118] 1102:21 publications 982:3,5 983:24 986:16 989:22 994:9 1049:11 1049:16,17,18 1050:5,23 1063:22 1066:22 1072:8 1084:23,24 1085:2,4 publicly 1048:5 publish 999:13 1029:3 1044:3 1047:8,18 published 992:23 1025:7 1027:21 1029:18 1032:19 1035:21 1036:2 1037:24 1049:13 1052:18 1069:5 1092:4 1101:19 publishee 1070:7 publishees 1054:11 1055:8 1055:16,16 1056:17 1057:12 1058:22 1060:11 1062:23 1063:23 1065:13 1071:19 1075:7 1075:12 1080:4 1098:18 publishee's 1055:15 publisher 1038:8 1058:4 publishers 1068:14 publishes 1065:20 1070:7 publishing 1000:10 1003:21 1043:21 1081:25 puffing 1033:19 pure 1063:2 purported 1037:17 1072:21 purpose 983:4 987:6 997:19 1012:18 1015:16 1017:25 1021:4 1027:6 1031:20 1038:4 1052:10 1079:16 purposes 987:5 1073:20 pursue 1096:16 1096:25 pursuing 1004:20 1098:16 purveying 1043:24 push 989:5 put 982:15 984:7 993:5 997:13 998:20 1005:6 1007:20 1009:4 1010:11,20,23 1013:14 1014:5 1015:7,9 1016:17 1019:11,15 1021:18 1022:16,20 1025:3,18,19 1029:10 1031:12 1040:8 1052:16 1053:2 1060:3 1070:25 1073:4 1079:10 1079:17 1084:21 1088:15 1090:11 1091:11 1093:3 1093:11,20 1096:22 1099:5 1100:15 puts 992:12 1034:10 putting 1014:12 1024:23 1043:14 puzzled 1033:4 Q QC 980:19,20 quack 1069:7 qualified 981:18 1026:2,22 1027:4 1045:21 1046:20 1053:10 1057:11,16 1058:18 1059:3 1061:12 1065:24 1068:15 1069:18,22 1071:23 1073:7 1074:14,16
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
1053:10 1057:11,16 1058:5,18,20 1059:3,23 1061:2,3 1062:18 1064:22 1065:24 1068:15 1069:19,22 1071:23 1073:7 1074:14,16 1079:21 1080:24 1081:15 1082:5 1082:8 1084:14 1084:23,25 1085:20,23 1086:6,19 1087:2 1094:9 1094:17 1098:8 privileged 983:8,8 1009:16 1028:7 1031:12,19 1035:7 1039:24 1044:14,21 1045:9 1047:2 1049:21 1061:24,25 1062:5 1063:18 1065:3 1071:8 1085:2,4,16 probabilities 1015:5 1024:14 probability 1087:8,8 probably 984:25 990:7 1021:23 1039:9 1061:10 1061:11 1087:3 1087:4,10 1089:16 1093:5 1094:14 1100:22 problem 1029:11 1082:22,23 1092:2 problems 1029:13 1034:17 1082:24 proceeding 1047:12 proceedings 983:9 process 1074:8 1091:11 produce 1077:7 1077:25 1091:14 profession 1054:17,18
1056:18 1060:4 1062:14 professional 1033:20 professionals 1071:3 1072:13 prominent 1080:11,12,13 1080:14 promise 981:22 982:12,13 984:13,15,16,22 985:4,14 986:5 986:9,10 996:9 996:12,17 1005:23 1007:19 1008:11 1010:24 1011:23 1012:22 1015:6 1015:12 1016:4 1016:9 1017:5,6 1017:10 1018:7 1018:25 1019:3 1019:5,8,12,20 1019:21 1020:25 1021:17 1022:5 1022:7,19 1023:25 1025:4 1056:13,13,13 1083:15 1097:20 promised 983:25 1005:17,19 1010:10,23 1018:15 1021:25 promises 981:21 984:24 986:7,11 989:2 991:7 996:11,19 1010:13,20 1021:2 1026:5 1035:2 1087:21 1097:14 promote 1042:16 proof 1001:2 1007:18 1078:15 propensity 1014:11,12 proper 1040:3 1046:6,9,12 1053:18,19 1054:14 1055:6 1057:17,18,25 1058:15 1059:24
1061:18 1062:2 1064:2 1066:12 1067:2 1071:20 1080:21 1081:4 1090:7 properly 986:9 1003:13 1047:18 1058:14 1077:20 property 987:19 988:19,19 989:5 1000:12 1050:4 1050:18 1056:22 1080:3 proportionate 1028:2 1029:8 1030:14 1078:21 proportionately 1030:8 proportions 1077:19 propose 1048:17 proposed 986:9 994:2 proposing 1061:13 proposition 986:24 1030:7 1040:25 1071:15 propositions 1029:17,22 1044:4 1068:4,5 proprietor 1001:7 1003:12 1005:15 prospect 1082:7 1086:5 prospective 1098:8 protect 1034:13 1046:12 protected 1045:19 1054:12 1063:20 1065:17 1074:24 1076:22 1082:9 protecting 1098:17 protection 1042:22,24 1043:10 1044:5 1045:16 1060:21 1076:9 1080:21 1096:3 prove 990:4,11,13 1000:25
1002:13 1041:19 1062:23 1091:15 1092:9 1102:21 proved 984:12 992:20 1040:16 provide 1048:6 provided 1027:21 1047:21,22 1059:23 1062:17 1076:21 proving 992:21 1085:8 provocative 1051:25 prurient 1060:17 1078:3 PSL 1002:8,10 PST 1092:24 public 982:9 1029:4,8 1035:5 1040:19,20 1042:24,25,25 1043:21 1045:10,13,19 1047:12 1048:5 1048:8,13 1063:24 1065:16 1066:25 1067:6 1068:24 1070:6 1070:8 1071:25 1080:7 publication 989:22,23 990:23 992:14 993:21 995:2 1013:25 1028:4 1028:6 1033:16 1041:16 1045:19 1053:14,18 1054:12 1057:8 1058:10 1060:3 1060:8,20,24 1063:20 1064:25 1065:8 1067:18 1071:6 1071:7,9,25 1075:17 1076:18 1078:9 1079:8 1081:2 1082:7,9 1086:21 1090:20 1091:15,16 1092:7,14,17 1098:21 1100:8
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
19 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 8 [Page 1119] 989:20 993:12 994:16 995:17 1006:15 1011:20 1027:20 1028:2 1029:15 1054:16,19,22 1054:25 1055:19,22 1056:2,8,12 1063:14,17,19 1066:18,24 1067:3,6 1068:11,17 1069:18 1070:4 1070:15,21 1071:5,10,12 1073:10,13,16 1074:3,8,16,23 1075:3 real 984:20 1087:6 realise 1008:21 realistic 994:13 reality 991:3 1031:25 1087:4 really 982:13 995:13 1006:4 1034:23 1066:16 1074:4 1089:20 1095:21,23 reason 992:24 1005:20 1008:13 1016:19 1023:25 1025:9 1034:5 1037:6 1041:23 1047:21 1048:15 1055:2 1065:18 reasonable 982:11 1029:7 1059:18 1078:20 reasonably 1011:6 1029:16 reasons 1102:12 rebuttals 1036:20 rebutted 1035:10 1035:13 1037:20 rebutting 1031:20 recall 1004:12 1011:25 1089:25 1094:6 1094:8 1099:14 receive 1043:16 1044:25 1045:14 1046:4 1046:19 1053:20 1055:6 1063:15 1080:7 1098:19 received 1023:12 1046:15 1048:8 1055:5 1100:2 receiving 1035:5,7 1046:14 1055:17 recipient 1044:19 1045:6,13 1061:17 recipients 1050:20 1058:14 1067:5 1068:13 1075:20 1097:2 1098:20 reciprocity 1039:23,24 1040:4 1041:2 1041:23 1045:2 1075:15 recognisable 983:6 recognise 1043:7 recognised 1053:18,19,19 recognises 1044:7 recognition 1045:12 recollect 1013:11 recollection 1013:10 1024:9 record 1011:8,8 1013:12 recorded 1012:11 1012:22 1025:19 1026:6 recover 1086:20 reduce 1074:18 reduction 1088:3 1088:5 refer 1059:2 reference 981:16 1008:25 1009:13 1016:9 1023:14,17 1024:10 1028:12,17 1070:19 1074:7 1093:2 1100:13 1101:6 references 998:3 999:15 1044:14 1061:20 referred 1027:10 1027:13 1028:18
1079:20 1080:24 1081:15 1082:5 1082:8 1084:14 1084:23,25 1085:20 1086:6 1086:19 qualify 1055:8 quality 980:15,16 1055:7 1059:13 1062:18 1064:14 1065:25 1068:23 1081:14 quarter 1052:25 1052:25 quasi 1033:15 quasi-juries 987:4 QUEEN'S 980:1 question 981:4 982:2,10,15 998:6 1002:4,5 1002:16 1005:7 1007:10 1010:14 1012:21 1014:5 1017:7 1019:2 1024:21 1025:12,14 1030:22 1031:10,24 1034:18 1037:16 1041:5 1049:13,17,20 1051:20,20 1057:3 1062:11 1063:17 1070:15 1071:4 1079:20 1080:4 1080:6 1082:14 1096:25 1097:3 1098:15 questions 1071:8 quia 1085:6,10 1086:8,22 quickly 988:23 1026:3 1090:13 quite 993:13 994:24 997:21 1000:10 1001:6 1002:5,11 1018:12 1025:11 1026:3 1030:19 1034:20 1042:2 1053:13 1055:10,24 1075:2 1078:14 1082:11
1084:18 1086:4 1086:16 1088:21 1089:2 1090:9 1093:15 1096:24 1097:19 1101:10 quotation 1028:13 1028:14 quote 1027:15,23 1063:13,16 1095:10 quoted 1027:13 1033:6 1044:21 R R 980:23 raid 989:4 railway 1059:21 raised 988:6 1017:15 1029:11 1041:24 1042:3 1042:4 1049:12 1065:21 1073:16 rake 1053:2 rambled 1026:14 1026:16 Rampton 980:19 981:2,3,16 984:6,9 985:17 985:25 986:3 989:19 990:9,12 990:16 991:13 991:18,23 992:10 993:23 994:13,20,25 995:9 997:4,11 999:2,21 1000:18,19,23 1001:4,9,11,12 1001:15,21,25 1002:2,5,12,20 1002:25 1004:4 1004:6,11,14,23 1006:12 1007:4 1007:8 1008:6,8 1008:9 1010:13 1011:11 1013:7 1015:11,15,19 1015:21 1016:14 1017:13,17,20 1017:23,25 1018:21,25 1019:24 1020:4 1020:6 1021:23 1022:5,14 1023:16,23 1024:4 1026:12
1026:14,20 1027:11,13,18 1028:14,20 1029:5 1031:10 1032:10,13 1033:3 1035:13 1035:18,23 1036:15 1037:5 1037:11,15 1038:15,17,20 1038:25 1039:7 1039:14,19 1041:13 1045:23 1046:24 1047:4 1047:6,11,17,20 1048:3,24 1049:2,5,6 1051:11,15,19 1051:24 1052:14 1053:6 1053:24,25 1054:4,6 1056:6 1057:3,5,9,10 1057:15,20,23 1058:8,13,21 1059:9 1061:5,8 1061:10,21 1062:10 1063:7 1063:11 1064:21 1065:4 1065:6 1066:3,8 1066:10,12 1067:21,24,25 1068:4 1069:10 1069:15,17 1071:5 1075:16 1075:17,22 1076:3,6,14 1077:6,11,14 1078:5,12,17,25 1079:15 1081:21,24 1082:13,18,25 1083:2,9,21 1084:17 1086:3 1086:13 1087:3 1087:13,14,20 1089:3 1091:17 1096:22 1097:8 1098:8 1099:16 1099:17,18,23 1100:14,18 1102:18,24 1103:2,3 Rampton's 1092:2 1098:6 rantings 1007:6 rapidly 986:8 rapist 990:11,13
990:13 rationale 1045:10 reach 1029:8 reached 1069:2 reaching 1059:18 1078:21 reaction 1013:21 1013:24,25 1014:9 1024:12 1102:7 read 981:11 987:24,25 988:9 988:15 990:25 994:4,18 996:10 999:21 1006:14 1023:16 1027:18 1029:12 1031:3 1031:14 1037:12 1038:23 1042:8 1044:16 1045:5 1045:24 1047:5 1048:17 1052:15 1053:9 1054:15 1056:4 1057:24 1058:6 1060:4,13 1062:7 1063:4 1066:15 1068:11 1074:20 1075:7 1076:23 1077:8 1078:7 1079:10 1079:13 1088:25 1091:22,25 1095:5 1099:12 1100:25 1101:5 1101:21 reader 991:24 993:6,21 997:6 1047:9 readers 988:8 994:5 996:14 1031:2,7 1047:5 1052:7 1053:15 1058:17 1064:9 1092:20 1098:9 1098:11 readership 1069:12 1090:24 1096:19 reader's 996:17 reading 982:9 994:19 1049:3 1052:11 1069:15 reads 988:4,16
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
19 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 8 [Page 1120] 1040:22 responsibility 998:6 1018:22 1021:9 1022:10 responsible 1062:5 1072:2 rest 991:16 restated 1037:22 restrained 1084:3 restraining 1083:17 restriction 1085:13 restrictions 1043:9 result 994:2 1096:11 1101:23 results 1020:10 revert 985:9 Reynolds 1033:16 1041:15,17,25 1042:5 1053:12 1060:19,21 1065:18,19 1066:14 1071:24 1077:2 re-emphasise 1093:25 rhetorical 1034:18 1057:2 rhetorically 981:24 1001:4 1012:21 1056:18 RICHARD 980:19 right 985:22 990:9 1002:6 1015:13 1018:16 1025:24 1026:4 1029:2 1031:13 1033:11,23 1035:20,24 1039:3 1043:8 1043:20 1044:6 1048:25 1052:13 1055:13 1057:7 1057:19 1058:12 1059:8 1061:11 1062:8 1062:18 1066:2 1066:11 1067:20 1076:13 1077:4 1086:4 1087:3,5 1087:12 1089:6 1094:14 1097:7 1102:22,25 rightly 1052:17 1059:9 1064:18 rights 1043:6 1074:9 rigour 981:12 rise 1034:3 1039:24 1086:25 rising 1056:10 risk 1079:16 road 997:21 room 985:10 1025:20 1033:13 1091:7 round 1033:21 1072:3 1088:15 Royal 980:2 rude 984:7 rule 1040:14 rules 983:4,4 rumour 1003:17 run 998:15 999:17 1007:17,21 1080:24 1088:2 1095:19 runs 1049:9 rushed 1014:23 S s 980:23 1099:21 sad 1076:6 safe 1084:11 sake 1087:24 Sakina 1005:24 1006:6,9,17 Salaam 1020:12 1023:15 SARAH 980:12 sarcastic 984:24 984:25 988:7 satisfied 1075:2 satisfy 1086:9 save 1079:4 1085:6 saw 1036:22 1074:5 saying 984:21 988:17 993:21 997:3 1004:12 1006:19,20 1012:2 1013:7 1013:10 1016:6 1016:24 1019:13 1035:16 1036:8 1038:9 1050:8 1058:16 1066:17 1084:20 1101:15
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
1032:16 1046:22 referring 1012:4 1075:8 refers 1100:3,4 regard 1008:3 1035:11 1045:7 1074:23 regarded 1007:8 1059:18 regarding 1044:16 regards 1090:13 1093:24 Reginald 980:9 991:21 992:4 993:2,13 995:3 997:7 1002:17 1005:12 1010:4 1023:5 1060:15 1061:22 Reginald's 1003:4 registration 1020:17 regret 1069:23 regrettable 1100:7,9 regular 1093:6,6 Regulation 1063:25 rehearsal 1041:13 rejected 1023:4 relates 1089:21 relation 981:17 983:13 992:25 1007:11 1009:21 1049:18 1053:6 1062:25 1063:21 1074:16 1083:12,18 1090:2 relations 1090:16 relationship 1005:8 1062:11 1062:16,19,22 1062:24,24 1063:12 1064:3 1066:23 1073:8 1101:7,8 relationships 1066:20 relatively 1099:3 1099:7 release 1037:24 1038:4 relegated 1033:10 1033:12 relevant 987:11
1027:22 1029:19,19 1031:5 1034:2 1037:16 1040:12 1054:22 1066:19,22 1075:8 1079:11 1092:13 reliability 1091:21 reliable 1091:19 reliably 1091:25 relief 1072:22 relieved 998:4 rely 1058:5 1092:6 1094:22 remaining 989:20 remarks 1032:19 1047:9 1061:24 1079:8 remedy 1082:14 1086:2 remember 983:2 994:2 1002:20 1006:8 1008:18 1010:20 1011:4 1012:3 1013:7 1016:24 1018:4 1018:4,9 1020:2 1023:10 1028:15 1031:18 1043:18 1050:9 1052:13 1069:11 1079:11 1101:11 remembered 994:4 1012:23 1023:9 1026:7 1031:4 1074:6 remembers 1018:5,6 remind 998:10 1079:23 removed 1096:9 reopen 1085:9 repeat 1085:15 1086:15 1087:6 repeated 1036:23 1085:22 1087:9 1087:9 repeatedly 1037:19 1053:2 repeating 1083:5 1084:4 1085:24 repelling 1027:25 repetition 1030:9 1082:20
1084:16 reply 997:15 1001:20 1004:16 1026:23 1027:8 1033:17 1034:23 1035:8 1036:4,23 1037:17 1039:25 1040:3 1040:6 1045:24 1046:16,23 1047:18,20,25 1048:20,21,23 1050:18,21,24 1051:4,9,15 1052:20,22 1090:1 1091:1 1092:1 1093:1 1094:1 1095:1 1096:1,23 1097:1 1098:1 1099:1 1100:1 1101:1 1102:1 1103:1 replying 1034:2 1038:11 report 983:8 1021:8 1023:23 1032:24 1046:18 reported 1019:12 1042:11 Reports 1032:25 representation 1033:5 reprint 1052:9 reprinted 1052:4 1052:7 reprinting 1052:10 reproduces 1052:17 republication 1086:5,24 reputation 990:7 1029:16 1034:5 1042:12,19,20 1042:22,24,25 1043:10 1044:7 1051:2 1085:6 1088:19 reputations 1044:5 require 982:14 required 1041:19 1099:4 requirement 1045:5 requires 1081:15 requisite
1055:17 1064:14 1065:25 1070:25 1078:19 reserve 1103:4 resignation 1007:5 resigned 1006:9 1090:13 resist 1088:11 resolution 1012:19 resolve 1011:20 1025:21 respect 988:7 1051:4 1061:7,8 1084:12 1086:17,20 respectful 1096:4 1098:14 respectfully 1024:15 1040:10 1087:5 1096:18 1097:7 respond 1030:23 1031:8 1037:17 1048:11,14 1089:6 responded 1035:17 1037:17 responding 1031:21 1034:12 1036:10 1039:4 1039:5 1047:22 1094:18 responds 1031:19 response 982:11 1017:19 1026:23 1028:2 1029:6,14,21,24 1030:2,5,7,14 1030:17 1031:2 1031:11,12,25 1034:7,19 1036:24 1038:7 1038:13 1040:4 1040:17,22 1041:3 1046:14 1047:3,23 1048:7 1049:14 1049:15 1050:3 1050:6,14 1053:7 1085:12 1093:22,25 1094:9,12 1096:20 responses 1040:21
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
19 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 8 [Page 1121] 996:16 social 1044:23 1046:2 1047:8 1095:15,24 society 1042:15 1042:21 1043:10,17,22 1043:23 1044:2 1044:2 1062:13 1063:25 1064:3 sod 1033:8 Sodor 1028:15,22 1039:11 soft 1080:25 solemn 1024:22 solicitor 1064:4 solicitors 1062:13 1063:25 solid 1080:18 1092:21 solution 1004:19 Solutions 1090:9 1090:10 somebody 982:12 983:19 986:11 990:10 994:16 1017:8 1028:7 1046:9,10 1058:19 1059:20,21 1060:14 1061:14,14 1065:2 1070:10 1076:8 1096:24 somebody's 1008:3 somewhat 1024:18 soon 1103:5 sorry 987:15 999:20 1002:5 1006:11 1026:14 1032:3 1033:20 1035:12 1053:25 1061:2 1066:10 1069:14 1083:9 1097:6 sort 992:12 993:19 1003:9 1020:20 1025:6 1033:15 1050:19 1056:23 1057:24 1062:16 sorted 1037:8 sorts 1030:5 sought 989:24 1074:12,24 sound 1031:23 source 1045:15 South 1080:18 So-and-so 985:18 so-called 983:13 speak 1020:15,19 1028:10 1056:19 speaking 1029:6 1049:14 1057:5 1059:6 1087:22 speaks 987:10 specialist 1058:10 1067:17 specific 1075:22 1083:6 speculation 1078:22 speculative 1064:9 speech 1042:9 1043:13 1053:11 1066:14 1099:18 spend 1054:6 spent 1101:21 spillage 1059:16 Spiller 983:3 spoil 1059:23 spoke 1004:7,24 spontaneous 1014:9 1024:12 1024:13 1050:25 1051:2 spontaneously 1002:25 stage 1015:11 1027:3 1049:25 1069:13,18 1075:2 stamping 1072:25 stance 1068:24 1069:6 stand 1081:16 1101:12 standard 1081:14 stands 988:8,14 1102:12 starkest 987:16 1024:6 start 998:14 1030:4 1032:8 1033:18 1037:9 1042:7 1044:11 1051:8,8 1056:10 1068:10 1071:6 started 1022:18
says 984:24 988:16 989:19 992:20 999:8 1001:22 1009:12 1011:11,24,24 1013:17 1014:6 1015:23,24 1018:3,15 1023:3,6,8,20 1033:24 1038:16,17 1039:16,17 1040:6 1042:12 1048:13 1052:9 1052:23 1056:7 1063:14 1070:21 1090:2 1095:15 1097:8 1098:8,13 1100:24 1101:4 1101:25 scale 1028:3 scientific 1068:23 1071:11 scope 1034:8 1075:3 screaming 1004:22,23 script 1083:4 scripts 1003:2 seat 1101:13 second 986:23 994:9 1014:3 1029:23 1035:6 1036:14 1041:2 1052:25 1054:2 1055:8 1075:11 1099:18 secondly 1020:15 1025:2 1029:20 1034:6 section 989:13,14 989:17,21 990:11,15,20 1088:12 1097:3 1097:5,6,7,11 1098:2 see 995:9,10 1009:9 1012:9 1013:20 1016:10 1023:22 1025:5 1028:20 1031:4 1036:23 1038:24 1047:24 1052:7 1052:11,18 1055:15 1066:3 1067:24 1072:6
1073:5 1076:16 1082:22,24 1099:7 1102:16 1102:17 seeing 1027:14 seek 1004:19 1093:25 seeking 1034:13 seeks 1045:17 seen 998:22 1030:10 1100:12 seep 1079:20 sees 981:19 994:6 1094:2 1095:6,9 1095:10 seize 988:18,20 seizure 993:14 sell 1090:14 send 1028:16 1103:4 sending 1081:10 sense 997:25 1004:2 1036:18 1036:18 1038:6 1041:18 1046:7 1056:22 1064:11 1065:17 1070:7 1077:15 1096:20 senses 1072:16 sensible 981:25 sent 1056:2 sentence 1014:4 separate 1017:24 1033:25 series 994:2,14 1036:14,20 1038:12 1047:15 serious 988:25 989:3,8 1001:7 1025:21 1040:15 1073:18 1088:5 1088:9 1101:10 seriousness 1073:21 serve 1036:6 served 1021:5 1043:21 service 1050:7 1066:25 1067:6 serving 1100:23 set 981:8 983:14 983:20 1000:13 1011:14 1023:25 1030:12
1032:23 1034:18 1035:14 1036:3 1083:4 sets 1011:14 1054:8 1056:3 settled 1069:24 settlement 1009:22 1023:4 seven 986:17 1012:24 1013:11 1041:9 1083:4 1089:18 severed 1090:15 shadow 1071:19 shadowy 1007:12 1007:13 share 1097:2 shareholders 1062:14,15 ship 1072:21 shocked 1102:5 shocking 989:11 shoes 1010:4 short 985:16 989:6 995:17,22 1026:13,18 1042:8 1051:14 1056:7 1089:15 shortly 1058:8 shot 1037:25 1038:13,13 show 993:3 1035:19 1037:2 1040:12 1053:13,17 1057:17,18 1058:6,8,13,17 1058:18,21,24 1059:4 1065:8 1065:24 1072:4 1072:24 1099:12 showing 1077:19 shows 1054:13 shred 989:11 1067:9 shy 1003:14 sic 1023:10 side 997:23 1019:10 sides 1055:14 sideshow 1087:15 1087:16 sight 1067:2 sights 1034:14 significance 1010:16 1053:7 1063:12 significant 984:21
1082:14 silence 1017:22 Silverdale 1000:10,21 1003:21 1012:4 1018:2 1051:6 1056:21 1057:4 1060:12 1064:9 1075:21 1076:2 1099:7 similar 993:19 1027:19 1043:14,17 1082:3,20 1083:5,8 similarities 1041:21 Simon 1100:24 1101:4,4 simple 1021:17 1063:3 1067:5 1089:22 simply 1007:17 1034:15 1080:24 1086:7 1092:15 1097:19 1099:5 1099:6 sincere 1016:11 single 987:23,23 989:11 990:19 990:23 995:2 1005:5 1024:10 1049:16,18 1050:4 1066:21 1067:9 1080:19 Sir 1100:3,15 sit 1079:11 sitting 987:4 1088:13 situation 1087:24 1091:20 1097:15 situations 1044:13 1061:21 six 1006:9 1089:18 skeleton 982:23 1027:10 1092:10,11,13 skill 1033:20 slander 989:20 slavishly 1049:3 slightly 982:4 1033:3 1049:6 1063:7 1095:3 1099:21 slipping 1016:11 slotted 1090:7 slow 1056:10 slung
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
19 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 8 [Page 1122] 1092:17 1096:12 takes 1026:23 1049:21 talked 1013:17 talking 1047:20 tamper 1003:15 1018:20 tangible 1086:5 Tanzania 989:10 993:12 998:13 999:8 1003:5 1029:10 1043:3 1050:7,17 1062:3 1064:18 1064:20 1065:15 1076:25 1077:10,17 1080:2 1091:22 1100:6 Tanzanian 1057:22 1067:11 1079:24 1080:13 target 1065:6,10 1075:6,11 1076:21 targeted 1059:11 1073:22 1075:20 1077:13,15 1078:7 1098:9 1098:14 targets 1034:14 task 1059:10 1075:9 technical 990:15 telephone 980:16 1000:3 1003:20 1019:19 1022:23 1023:11 telephoned 1004:17 1022:19 1023:3 1023:8 television 998:21 tell 996:23 999:4 1020:8,8 1022:2 1022:7 1033:7 1067:9 1069:24 1072:4 1100:14 telling 1003:20 1014:2 1018:11 1021:3 1051:3 1065:16 1080:19 tellingly 1011:3 tells 999:12 1081:18 template 1050:20 ten 1089:16 tend 1074:3 1094:4 1095:19 tendentiously 1090:11 terms 983:10 1028:3 1081:22 1081:24 1085:14 1103:4 terrify 996:2 territory 1084:18 terrorise 996:7 1000:7 terrorised 996:25 terrorism 995:18 995:23,23,24 996:15 997:13 1000:11 terrorist 1030:17 1073:17 1074:17,19 1080:15 test 1050:20 1094:2,18 text 1027:18 1037:12 Thank 1024:3 1039:10 1069:16 1076:13 1089:3 1099:15 1103:3 theft 990:7 theme 994:6 theses 1064:21 thesis 1064:17 thief 990:3,5 1070:10,12 thing 997:3 1005:5 1013:8 1014:3,3 1020:16 1084:25 1085:9 1087:17 1090:18 1101:9 things 997:14 1011:16 1018:8 1018:9 1070:5 1079:17 1088:2 1100:18 think 985:3 989:6 989:7 990:17 992:12 1004:25 1005:16 1006:5 1006:7,7,9 1009:5 1013:5 1014:17 1018:3 1019:24,25
1030:20 starting 1000:5 1020:7 1071:22 1071:23 starts 994:11 995:13 1074:14 state 981:6 984:10 985:6,12 stated 1044:18 1062:19 statement 984:18 985:6 987:6 988:22 1010:25 1011:24,25 1012:25 1022:15 1023:2 1023:6,7 1028:6 1040:14,15 1044:19 1045:6 1045:17 1063:11 1080:5 1093:17 1101:25 1102:8 statements 983:22 984:3 1003:3 1027:4 1040:11 1043:25 1065:2 states 1074:2 station 1059:21 status 1005:25 1093:5 staying 1033:7 Stenograph/Sho... 980:15 step 1056:8 1066:21 1086:3 steps 1074:18 Stewart 1011:13 Steytler 1038:16 sting 1097:18,22 stony 1017:21 stood 1101:13 stop 984:2 1007:16,19 1010:11,23 1012:3 1013:14 1016:4 1017:5,9 1018:15 1019:2 1019:11,14,15 1019:20 1020:14 1023:19 1024:23 1025:18,19 1064:15 1070:10 1093:20 stories 996:24 story 1030:20 1064:12,13
1076:6,6 straight 981:3 straightaway 994:7 Strand 980:3 strange 1091:7 strength 1101:17 stress 1015:25 stretching 985:17 strict 1054:9,10 1054:10 1065:23 strictly 1053:16 stringent 1042:2 Strip 1072:23 strong 985:20 996:5 struck 1057:9,10 1091:13 struggle 995:5 1091:10 strung 1080:23 Stuart 1093:19 stuff 1060:16 1100:7 stupid 991:24 subject 994:4 1017:15 1028:3 1043:8,19 1062:17 1068:14 1074:17 1082:8 1084:23,25 1085:10 subjects 999:9 submission 984:17 985:18 996:2 1021:20 1088:20 1096:4 1098:14 submissions 982:20 1077:4 1102:23 1103:5 submit 981:13 1031:23 1038:6 1090:9 subsequent 1019:3 subsequently 985:18 substance 1097:19,23 substantial 1092:7,16,17 1097:17 substantially 984:11 sub-meanings 985:23 succeed 992:21
1041:20 1065:25 1082:15,16,18 succeeded 1082:4 1084:14 1085:20 succeeds 1086:19 success 1011:22 successful 998:12 998:13 1081:23 such-and-such 1085:12 suddenly 988:15 1016:20 sued 993:21 1069:8 1091:13 sufferers 1056:20 suffice 1092:18 sufficient 1030:19 1055:9 suggest 1000:11 1003:8 1008:9 1015:25 1024:15 1027:6 1068:3 1074:3 1095:18 1101:2 suggested 999:2 1023:24 1024:17 1027:3 suggesting 998:24 1029:5 1068:4 suggestion 982:16 999:12 1000:24 1001:10 1006:2 1019:16 1086:17 suggests 991:19 suitable 1051:12 summarise 981:20 summarised 982:23 1038:20 summarising 983:16 summary 981:9 982:25 996:19 1000:13 1011:9 1039:9 Sun 1032:19 Sunday 995:15 support 988:24 989:12 1024:9 1055:20 supportive 1006:17 supports 995:4,4 995:7 1006:18 suppose 984:25 988:15 1003:6 1007:23 1030:22
1039:21 1077:7 1077:11 1080:14 1082:4 1083:14 1085:9 1087:6 supposed 1042:22 1080:22 supposing 1047:13 Supreme 982:25 983:3 1037:3 1040:24 sure 1001:25 1022:21 1027:13 1089:23 1090:18 1099:24 surely 1035:19 1064:17 1085:18 surprised 1025:5 surprising 999:10 1022:17 surprisingly 1055:7 survived 1069:23 suspected 1044:16 1046:18 1070:12 suspicion 1012:14 swathes 1084:10 Swedish 1006:7 swift 999:3 Synod 1080:23 T tab 1006:6 1053:22 1054:3 1054:4 1067:20 1092:11 1100:15,20 table 1082:9 tailored 1094:4 take 981:20 982:5 993:4,9,20 998:9 1009:5 1017:4 1026:12 1041:6 1049:7 1052:10 1079:16,22 1083:14,24 1084:2 1089:13 1094:19 1096:13 1100:12 taken 982:25 997:5 1012:6,8 1049:20 1068:25 1074:18 1091:7
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
19 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 8 [Page 1123] underline 1014:4 underlined 1014:7 underlying 996:6 1044:17 1045:10 1055:11 undermines 989:9 understand 1011:21 1046:21 1047:24 1050:15 1058:3 understatement 1074:5 understood 1016:7 1017:8 1036:8 1059:2 undertake 1075:9 undertaking 981:23 985:4 1011:24 1012:3 1013:23 1014:5 1014:7,21,24 1016:21 1017:8 1023:9 1024:10 1024:13,22 1025:6 1089:25 undoubtedly 994:25 1051:24 unequivocally 1025:11,17 unethical 1088:10 unfair 1002:3 1025:13 1030:20 1051:4 unfortunate 1015:21 unfounded 1042:17 unhappily 1024:25 unhappy 1024:5 1024:24 1091:17 uninhibited 1045:14 uninterested 1060:8 United 1033:10 1046:8 United's 1034:17 unjustified 1095:6 1095:16 unjustly 1044:7 unprofessional 1001:19 unproved 1088:18 unquantifiable 1092:20 unquestionably 1019:5 unreal 990:24 unsurprisingly 988:6 untrue 984:5,8,10 1026:10 1083:7 1083:13 1084:3 1085:25,25 1088:14,17 untruthful 1021:7 1021:22 upheld 1079:7 uphill 1091:10 upset 986:20 1025:15 up-to-date 1027:2 urge 1049:7 urgency 1070:5,8 urgent 1070:11 use 984:16 985:20 989:10 992:25 993:2 996:23 1000:6 1009:22 1015:6 1020:14 1022:24 1023:19 1028:9 1032:5 1036:17 1040:11 1053:3 1079:18 useful 981:17 uses 988:12 997:8 usual 1080:6 1100:5,7 1103:4 ut 1008:23 V v 983:3 1027:23 1028:15,21,22 1032:18 1044:21 1045:24 1046:22,23 1053:22 1058:9 1058:24 1059:12 1062:9 1063:6,9,10 1065:7 1066:2 1067:14,15 1068:7 1071:15 1072:15 1076:13,14 1077:23 1092:8 1092:18 1094:3 1094:5,19,23 1095:21 1096:20 1098:7 1098:13 1099:13 value 1006:24 various 1074:20 Vassilief 1098:12
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
1022:15,19,20 1023:10 1028:14 1032:4 1032:19,20,21 1032:25 1037:5 1037:7 1038:21 1041:9 1048:24 1051:9 1052:2 1052:24 1055:21 1058:16 1061:7 1061:10 1066:17 1067:13 1069:10 1070:2 1073:5 1074:11 1080:9 1081:21 1082:12 1084:19 1087:14 1089:2 1090:6 1093:11 1094:14 1095:3 1095:11,20 1098:13 1099:25 1100:22 thinking 1052:21 1076:16 1077:16 1089:2 thinks 1089:11 1102:19 third 986:23 988:2 996:23 1006:14 1013:21 1014:4 1020:16 1030:7 1041:2 1052:25 1073:15 1095:4 thought 981:25 993:19 1018:7 1021:15 1034:16 1052:15 1053:15 1063:13 1079:10 1081:4 1089:24 three 982:3 983:4 983:12 991:5 995:14 996:10 996:19 1006:13 1014:5 1020:5 1029:2,22 1042:8 1052:13 1052:21 1056:2 1056:3 1068:15 1089:14 1091:23 1099:8 throw 1053:14 thrown 994:14,21 thundering
1056:10 time 984:19 985:15,16 994:3 999:24,25 1004:7 1012:7 1014:14,14,15 1014:18 1021:15 1023:7 1026:10 1029:18 1030:24 1034:14 1038:9 1041:2 1046:20 1050:10 1051:14 1054:6 1060:15 1067:16 1076:17 1085:11 1101:20 1102:2 timeo 1086:9 times 1004:14 1020:5 1028:8 1047:3,5,7,10 1081:10 1094:3 1094:5,6,9,16 1094:20 timet 1085:6,10 1086:8,22 tip 1040:22 today 1081:19 1089:7 1099:21 today's 1045:4 toes 996:18 told 985:18 992:18 998:20 999:3 1004:20 1006:23 1008:22 1009:15,22 1014:20 1019:6 1020:9,12 1021:7 1023:5 1023:17,20 1048:24 1071:20 1093:9 1093:20 1102:2 1102:4 Tolkien 1092:18 Tomlinson 1055:21 tone 982:4 top 991:15,16 993:11 1008:14 1008:23 1014:6 1033:5 1039:17 1042:12 1043:13 1045:5 1047:25 1048:13
1054:24 1068:20 Tottenham 1046:8 touch 1061:15 toyed 1074:9 traditions 1032:7 transaction 1061:14 transcript 980:15 998:3 1051:17 TRANSCRIPTS 980:24 transform 1018:25 trawl 994:23 tread 1084:18 treated 990:23 trial 982:24 1001:23 1069:24 1072:17 1076:15 1077:23 1095:11 1101:21 tried 999:4 trouble 1026:21 1054:23 true 983:7 984:11 984:12,12 990:6 998:18 999:6 1030:20 1040:16 1043:20,25 1044:3 1084:8,9 1084:22 1085:2 1085:4,8,12,16 1085:22 1086:10 1088:15,16 1097:19 1102:19 truly 1029:6 1049:13 trussed 995:11 trustees 1072:19 1072:20 1073:14 Trusts 1000:16 truth 1016:22,23 1018:11 1021:7 1031:16 1041:19 truthful 1022:8 try 1015:7 1025:21 1026:3 1028:10 1032:15 1035:17 1085:8 trying
1013:11 1024:14 1029:8 1039:7 1052:14 1065:22 1088:25 Tugendhat 1095:10 1102:10,12 turn 1008:10 1011:11 1027:12,15 1043:12 1055:24 1070:3 1074:15 twice 1020:4 two 982:5 987:25 989:23 991:4 992:7 997:3 998:3 999:15 1003:7 1006:13 1013:16 1014:16 1015:2 1015:22 1026:23 1029:2 1029:17 1032:16 1033:15,24 1037:22 1049:17 1051:8 1051:13,17 1053:25 1055:8 1067:14 1072:5 1073:12 1081:6 1082:4 1086:3 1089:19 1094:6 1100:18 two-thirds 1095:14 U ultimately 1051:20 unambiguous 993:13 1020:22 unambiguously 1018:15 unapologetically 1025:11 unchallenged 1102:8 unchartered 1084:18 unclear 993:23 uncomfortable 993:17 uncomplimentary 1047:9 uncontested 1004:2,3,7 1005:8 underlies 1048:17
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
19 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 8 [Page 1124] 1055:7,17,20,22 1056:2,8,12 1058:6 1059:2 1059:20 1063:15,18,19 1066:19,24 1067:4,6 1068:9 1068:11,17 1069:15,18 1070:4,16,22 1071:6,10,13 1072:20 1073:4 1073:10,13,13 1073:15,16 1074:3,7,8,16 1074:23 1075:3 1075:7 1076:23 1079:19 1082:3 1082:20,20,20 1083:5,8,12,13 1084:8,21,22 1087:23 1095:6 1100:12,25 1101:6,18,21 work 1000:4 1042:16 1068:24 working 1001:13 1043:22 works 1002:8 1092:25 world 1033:16 1041:16 1060:20 1062:6 1064:23 1065:16,20 1071:25 1075:13 worldwide 1074:23 1091:22 worry 1020:20 1025:17 worse 1069:2 worth 987:20 1027:14 1068:19 1088:11 1100:23 wouldn't 1033:10 writ 1068:17 write 1014:23 writer 983:15 1047:7 writes 1008:14 written 981:8,19 982:11 997:16 998:7,8 1006:7 1008:17 1015:2 1022:17 1049:3 1049:8 1052:12 wrong 1017:2 1018:17 1033:20 1035:15,25 1036:4 1071:12 1098:15,24 1101:4 wrongdoing 1009:23 wrongly 1064:18 1094:7 wrote 1011:9 1014:14 1026:8 1026:10 1029:6 Y year 1054:8 years 998:12 1012:24 1013:12 1036:25 1044:12 1052:13,21 1067:25 1091:23 1099:8 yelled 1005:2 yesterday 1031:14 Yiamouyianis 1059:15 1067:15,17,19 1068:7,24 1069:7,10 0 020 980:16 1 1 981:20 999:17 999:18,21 1032:8 1068:19 1HP 980:16 1st 980:15 1.2 987:20 1100:15 1.2(B) 1090:23 10 1026:17 1054:24 1070:2 1070:3 1089:8 1089:10 1093:4 1095:2,3 100-101 999:18 101 999:21 104 995:3 104-105 999:17,22 105 994:9 11 1067:20 1070:3 111B 1093:17,19 12 1000:5 1016:17 1026:17 1097:3 129 993:11
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
vast 998:4 1077:25 vein 986:24 1043:14 verbatim 1011:8 version 1021:24 1032:13 1033:2 1033:3 victim 1048:6,10 1094:7,10,16,17 1096:2,15 victim's 1036:23 view 992:2 1009:16 1101:16 viewed 1087:18 views 1095:6,16 vigorously 1088:8 vindicate 1038:2 1042:20 vindicating 1038:4 virtually 1076:7 virtues 1005:4 visited 1102:3,4 visitors 1078:2 visits 994:16 1058:4 1090:24 1091:3,8 vital 1081:18 vociferously 1022:18 volume 1054:2 volumes 1053:25 voluminous 1026:3 volunteer 1061:16 1063:2 volunteered 1063:23,24 vote 1042:17 1055:12 1056:24 1060:5 voting 1060:5 W waive 1009:17 waives 1098:3 walking 1050:8 Walsh 980:15 want 1006:14 1062:10 1065:14 1079:5 1083:25 1084:21 1087:14,23 1095:16 1098:5 wanted 1007:8 1050:11,11,14 1066:12 1096:9 1098:3
wants 1093:18 Ward 1044:21 1045:25 1046:23,23 warn 1074:13 wash 1007:20 water 1069:3 1088:21 Watts 1094:2,5,7 1094:16,19 way 982:21 984:7 992:4,13 996:7 997:23 1005:25 1010:17 1016:17 1017:14,16 1023:15 1024:7 1024:19 1029:10 1033:20 1036:4 1043:14,16 1046:13 1053:15 1055:24 1058:21 1065:15 1067:8 1068:6 1072:3 1074:22 1076:3 1076:7,16 1078:21 1080:6 1088:9,15 1090:12 1091:11 1095:14 1096:19 1098:10 1099:5 ways 984:9 989:6 997:3 1013:3 1017:24 1030:5 1034:10 1064:12 1067:8 1087:15 WC2A 980:3,16 weapons 1030:16 web 1074:23 1092:8 website 982:3,9 987:19 988:9,9 988:11,15 990:22,22 991:2 991:16 992:23 993:5 994:16,18 994:23 1021:12 1026:9 1029:6,7 1030:11,13 1031:4,25 1034:22 1035:13,21 1036:3,10 1042:18
1049:16 1050:5 1050:10,22 1052:4,5,11 1057:13,24 1058:4,17,19 1059:9,11,22 1060:3,12,13 1063:22 1064:10,17,25 1065:10,15 1067:11,17 1070:17 1073:4 1073:4,12,22 1075:7,12,17,19 1076:20 1077:13 1078:2 1078:7 1083:25 1084:10 1086:24 1090:25 1091:25 1098:9 1099:6 1102:3,5 1102:6 website's 983:24 week 1033:11 1036:11 1091:6 weekend 1004:15 week's 994:15 weight 1015:4 1090:21 1095:17 welcome 1089:8 well-defined 1071:16,16,18 1076:21 went 991:21 1004:9 1012:17 1080:10 1099:21 Western 1037:3 1040:24 whatsoever 992:10 whichever 1082:2 Whitman 980:19 wholly 1008:3 1090:10 wide 987:3 1094:18 wider 1076:18 1096:16 width 1085:13 wielding 991:22 wife 1019:7,12,25 1020:9,11 1021:3,9,11 1022:2,6 1023:15 1024:2 1075:13 wild 1004:9 wilfully
1088:23 willing 991:23 1002:14 win 1097:11 wisdom 1068:9 Wise 1033:7 wish 981:12 994:23 1053:21 1100:18 1101:9 witness 998:22 1002:12,13,25 1003:3 1005:5 1006:2,17,20,22 1010:25 1011:24,25 1012:25 1018:10,11 1022:15 1023:2 1023:6,7 1080:5 1093:17 1101:25 1102:8 witnesses 1000:20 1015:23 wonders 996:14 1007:10 Woodborough 1043:13 woolly 1080:25 word 984:14,16 985:17,20 1008:3,5 1020:2 1025:18 1031:16 1045:12 1051:25 1094:23 1097:18 1099:22 wording 1083:20 1083:21 words 983:21 984:10 985:10 985:14 986:15 987:9 988:4,21 989:11,20,25 990:13 993:12 993:24 994:8 995:6,17 996:5 1006:15 1011:21 1016:7 1027:21 1028:2 1028:9,13 1029:15 1032:23 1033:5 1036:18 1041:19 1044:17,18 1048:4 1050:12 1054:16,19,22 1054:25 1055:5
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
19 NOVEMBER 2012
13th 992:15 995:15 1037:21 130 993:10,11 135 1101:24 1371 989:16 14 1100:20 14.48 1027:9 15 1069:11,17 15th 994:10 995:3 1037:23 15,000 1071:18 155 1090:23 16 982:24 1053:2 16-05 1063:9 16-12 1063:14 162 1050:13 17th 1016:17 18 1020:7 184 1004:17 185 1006:12 19 1032:16 1092:11 19th 980:4 1013:22 1014:17 1016:18 1021:14 1024:11 1027:2 1045:3 1067:21 1068:3,5 194 1044:12 1949 990:16 195 1045:5 1047:25 1048:13 1053:12 1952 989:14 1097:4 196 1011:12 1995 1068:11 1996 1037:21,24 1999 1042:11 2 2 983:5,5 987:15 987:16 997:2,4 998:7 999:16,18 999:19,22 1009:13 1033:5 1057:9 1068:19 1068:20 1093:19 1094:13 2LL 980:3 2nd 1014:17 2.1 1011:12 1050:13 2.9 989:16 20 1049:9 20th 1037:24 2001 1042:11
2004 1072:18 2005 992:16 1005:2 1036:3 2006 997:20 1009:11,15 1013:22 1021:14 1024:11 1034:22 1036:3 2007 1008:14 1052:3 1055:19 2008 1006:8,21 2009 993:8,10 994:10 995:15 1006:9 201 1042:7,12 2010 987:20 988:16 993:8 996:13 1015:12 1023:8 1049:23 1050:8 1091:3 2012 980:4 1091:5 21 1101:15 238 1043:12 24 1053:22 1054:4 24th 1009:11,15 25 1049:10 26 1071:12 1079:16 1092:14 26th 993:9 995:19 27 1032:6,9 1069:22 1079:16 271-272 999:19,22 28 1032:8 29th 1006:8 2900 980:16 294-295 999:18,22 3 3 983:5,7,9 988:22 992:11 997:2 998:7 1000:6 1006:6 1093:4 3rd 1014:16 1052:3 30 1073:24 1100:19,24 304 1009:13,19 31 1000:18 31st 987:20 991:11 1049:23 1050:3 1091:3 32 1000:14 1055:25 35 1074:6 36 1056:6 37 1055:18,25 38 1063:8 39 1063:5
390 1093:4 4 4 983:5 999:16,21 1009:19 1073:7 44 1095:10,11 45 1093:19 46 1066:4,7,8,13 1066:15 47 1067:25 486 1027:9,18 1028:20 488 1028:18 5 5 981:19 982:25 987:15 989:13 989:14,17,21 990:11,20 1088:12 1090:20,25 1097:5,6,7,11 1098:2 5th 1034:22 50 1066:16 1095:13,14 56 1032:17 1037:15 57 1049:9 597 1020:6 1023:17 6 6 987:14,15 1033:17 1051:22 1055:18 6-9 980:16 6.6 1004:17 616 1022:24 630 1016:13,16 69 1074:14 7 7 1033:23 1073:6 1073:12,25 7067 980:16 72 1074:20 73 1049:10 756 1051:22 775 1052:24,25 78 1039:8 8 8 980:23 1010:25 1011:25 80 1039:11 81 1039:11,12 83 1037:5,10,11 1039:16 84 1037:5,10
1039:17 87 987:20 990:8 991:17 9 9 1069:11,17 1070:3 1093:4 9th 1101:12 99.9 1089:23
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864

Mengi V Hermitage 2102 Trial Transcript

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mengi V Hermitage 2102 Trial Transcript

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MENGI v HERMITAGE

PROCEEDINGS DAY 8 [Page 982]

15 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

this: "He promised the High Commissioner of the British

[1] (Pages 980 to 983)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900

FAX: (020) 7831 6864

19 NOVEMBER 2012 [Page 984]

PROCEEDINGS DAY 8 [Page 986]

[2] (Pages 984 to 987)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900

FAX: (020) 7831 6864

19 NOVEMBER 2012 [Page 988]

PROCEEDINGS DAY 8 [Page 990]

9 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: However, is it not right, Mr. Rampton, that if

12 MR. RAMPTON: No application at all, if you do not say he is a

23 MR. RAMPTON: I am willing to accept that. One has to be

[3] (Pages 988 to 991)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900

FAX: (020) 7831 6864

19 NOVEMBER 2012 [Page 992]

PROCEEDINGS DAY 8 [Page 994]

20 MR. RAMPTON: Yes. Also, moreover, unlike a newspaper, which if

[4] (Pages 992 to 995)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900

FAX: (020) 7831 6864

19 NOVEMBER 2012 [Page 996]

PROCEEDINGS DAY 8 [Page 998]

2 MR. RAMPTON: I would have suggested he would have got a pretty

[5] (Pages 996 to 999)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900

FAX: (020) 7831 6864

19 NOVEMBER 2012 [Page 1000]

PROCEEDINGS DAY 8 [Page 1002]

CLOSING - CLAIMANT proof is on the defendant.

is a suggestion, that is all.

25 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: I am not sure about that, Mr. Rampton.

[6] (Pages 1000 to 1003)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900

FAX: (020) 7831 6864

19 NOVEMBER 2012 [Page 1004]

PROCEEDINGS DAY 8 [Page 1006]

CLOSING - CLAIMANT as ----

[7] (Pages 1004 to 1007)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900

FAX: (020) 7831 6864

19 NOVEMBER 2012 [Page 1008]

PROCEEDINGS DAY 8 [Page 1010]

[8] (Pages 1008 to 1011)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900

FAX: (020) 7831 6864

19 NOVEMBER 2012 [Page 1012]

PROCEEDINGS DAY 8 [Page 1014]

[9] (Pages 1012 to 1015)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900

FAX: (020) 7831 6864

19 NOVEMBER 2012 [Page 1016]

PROCEEDINGS DAY 8 [Page 1018]

21 MR. RAMPTON: He did say, "I am not aware of the articles. It is

after that, what response, if any, was made.

I think his wife did as well.

[10] (Pages 1016 to 1019)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900