Mengi V Hermitage 2102 Trial Transcript

MENGI v HERMITAGE
16 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 7 [Page 843]
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 Friday, 16th 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 7 24 ---------ALL TRANSCRIPTS PREPARED WITHOUT CASE DOCUMENTS 25
1 2 3 4
MENGI-PRICE the Investment Committee of NICO after the company invested in a company in which Benjamin Mengi has an interest." You
exhibited a copy of your letter of resignation? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. That was the letter of resignation of 3rd August 2007 that you 7 exhibited?
8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Can I just remind you how that resignation surfaced. You will 10 remember that on 23rd April 2009, you held your press
conference about sharks of corruption? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. One of those sharks that you named was Mr. Rostam Aziz? 14 A. Yes, my Lord.
11 15 Q. He, on 3rd May 2009, quite shortly thereafter, held a press 16 conference, did he not, in which he rebutted or sought to 17 18
rebut your charge of being a shark of corruption? That is
right, is it not? 19 A. I am sorry? 20 Q. Mr. Rostam Aziz, not long after your press conference, held 21 his on press conference in which he sought to rebut your charge? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. One of the matters that he raised was your Chairmanship of the 25 Investment Committee of the National Investment Company?
22
[Page 842]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13
[Page 844]
MENGI-PRICE 2 A. Yes, my Lord. 3 Q. What he said, in short, was that he referred to the investment 4 of 2.5 billion shillings of NICO's money in your brother's
1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. PRICE: My Lord, I think the menu this morning is first of all a cross-examination of Mr. Mengi on a single topic, namely his resignation from National Investment Company. So if Mr. Mengi would like to go back to the witness box? MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Mr. Mengi, would you return to the witness box, please? Obviously, the witness should have what I have, which is the small clip beginning with 3rd August 2007. MR. PRICE: Yes. REGINALD MENGI, RECALLED CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. PRICE (continued) from last week when you gave evidence.
12 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Do sit down, Mr. Mengi. You are still sworn 14 A. Okay, thank you, my Lord. 15 MR. PRICE: Can we just remind ourselves, Mr. Mengi, of what we 16 17 18
are looking at? If you take file 2 and go to tab 1, page 43 -- perhaps starting at page 42. At the bottom of page 42, do you see paragraph 102?
19 A. Yes. 20 Q. "I would not and have never allowed my relationship with 21 22
Benjamin Mengi to compromise my principles and responsibilities."
23 A. Yes. 24 Q. "For example...." and then the second of the examples, over 25
the page, "In 2007, I resigned in protest as the Chairman of
company Interchem Pharma. A. Yes, my Lord. Q. He said that when NICO bought Interchem Pharma from your brother, company was in serious trouble. A. Yes, my Lord. Q. He implicated you in the purchase, saying that you engineered it in order to save your brother financially? A. Yes, my Lord. Q. In fact, the company, Interchem Pharma, went into receivership very soon after NICO bought it? A. Yes, my Lord. Q. You, in turn, responded to that. You might just like to look at that. If you put away file 2 and take out file 3 and go to tab B, page 109. Do you have that? A. Yes, my Lord. Q. This is the Guardian of 5th May 2009, shortly after Mr. Aziz's press conference. A. Yes, my Lord. Q. The headline is "Mengi hears the evidence, Rostam." If you would like to go over the page, if you look at the seventh column -- no, the sixth column, I am sorry. The middle of the
[1] (Pages 841 to 844)

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
16 NOVEMBER 2012 [Page 845]
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
MENGI-PRICE sixth column, the third from last column. Do you see in the middle of it, "The Hon. Rostam Aziz has intentionally circulated lies." Have you got that? A. I have got the letters, but they are very small. Q. You find it difficult to read? A. Yes, they are small. Q. Let us just read it together. This is, I think, quoting what you have to say about it. "Mr. Aziz has intentionally ... (reads to the words) .... and membership of the committee." A. Yes, my Lord. Q. That is the first time that any public reference was made to your having resigned in August 2007? A. Yes, my Lord. Q. I think we can put that file away now. Can I just ask you to look at the originals of your resignation letter of 3rd August 2007? Do we have them available? You have them there, I think. Do you have the originals? A. Let me see. Q. You are looking for your letter of 3rd August 2007 to Mr. Mosha, the Chairman of the Board of Directors of NICO. A. Yes, my Lord. Q. You have them? A. I have.
1 2
MENGI-PRICE Mr. Mosha, 10th August 2007. Do you have that?
3 A. Yes, my Lord. 4 Q. What he apparently wrote was, in the second paragraph, "The 5 6
issue of Interchem ... (reads to the words) .... this decision accordingly."
7 A. Yes, my Lord. 8 Q. That is clear enough, is it not? 9 A. Yes, my Lord. 10 Q. If you look over the page, there is what purports to be a copy 11
of a Board Resolution.
12 A. Yes, my Lord. 13 Q. So were you satisfied by that? 14 A. Yes, my Lord. 15 Q. So you stayed on as the Chairman of the Investment Committee. 16 18
Is that right? Committee Chairman.
17 A. I stayed on, but I did not do any further work as Investment 19 Q. Why not? 20 A. Eventually, my Lord, the Board decided to dissolve the 21 22 23 24
Investment Committee. Although it was mentioned in subsequent documents, but we do not, we were not called upon again to deal with an investment because there were only five investments by NICO and nothing came after this one.
25 Q. The function of the Investment Committee was to oversee NICO's
[Page 846]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13
[Page 848]
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
MENGI-PRICE Q. There are two originals in IPP's files, are there not? A. There is a copy, there is no original. It is a copy. Q. Well, there is a top copy, is there not? A. Yes, my Lord. Q. Just show it to my Lord. There should be two there. There is one top copy, one bottom copy and they are both signed? A. Yes, my Lord. Q. Normally, the top copy would have gone to Mr. Mosha, would it not? of the copies normally is made with letterhead. That is our tradition and procedure in Tanzania.
11 A. My Lord, whenever we have important documents to send out, one
14 Q. Then you have also kept what is more normal, a bottom copy? 15 A. That is called "file copy" in Tanzania and that is our 16 18 19
procedure; I cannot change it. staff produced, a clip of documents from which it emerged that you did not resign in August 2007. That is right, is it not?
17 Q. After I cross-examined you last week, you produced, or your
20 A. Yes, I tendered my resignation on that day, my Lord. 21 Q. However, you were persuaded to stay on? 22 A. Yes, my Lord. 23 Q. Do you have the clip of documents there? 24 A. Yes, my Lord. 25 Q. You do? Just look at the response to your letter from
MENGI-PRICE investment portfolio, was it not? A. My Lord, the function given to us was to vet projects proposed by management before submission to the Board. Q. You became a director of NICO on 26th July 2008? A. I did, my Lord. Q. Was anything done to divest the investment Interchem Pharma? A. My Lord, the Board passed its resolution that there will disinvest from Interchem and that responsibility of carrying out that process of dis-investing was supposed or normally supposed to be carried out by the management of the company to implement the Board directive or resolution. Q. Now I will repeat the question: was anything done to divest the investment? A. May I explain, my Lord? MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Perhaps you could just answer the question first? A. That was done, my Lord. MR. PRICE: By all means explain if you want to. A. My Lord, the decision, the directive of the Board was to disinvest from Interchem Pharma which meant selling the shares of Interchem Pharma. Interchem is not an (inaudible) company, so I realised that it would take time to disinvest. If it had been a (inaudible) company, I would have said give it a day, two days, they will just put the shares in the bucket and they
[2] (Pages 845 to 848)

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
MENGI-PRICE will be sold, whatever price, but for a (inaudible) company, it takes time. So the time which they had taken when came September, I was not happy. That is why I resigned, you know, send in my resignation. Q. However, you have just told my Lord that absolutely nothing was done to implement the resolution. A. What I meant, my Lord, forgive me, is that this investment was not done, but they were still looking for someone to buy those shares. Q. How do you know? A. Because I kept on asking. I did not just go there, my Lord, and kept quiet because the reason for staying on is because I was assured this would be done, but I kept on asking, "What is happening?" It is when it came September, I felt, you know, it was not right to stay on. Q. Let us just look a little more closely at the investment in Interchem. Look at the Capital Markets and Security Authority report that was made on NICO. Do you have that? A. Yes, my Lord. Q. Now go to page 4 of it. A. Yes, my Lord. Q. "The company invested 1.7 million ... (reads to the words) .... required to revamp it." A. Yes, my Lord.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 17 18 20 21 22 23 25
MENGI-PRICE not go to NICO looking for investment to review. I am called upon by NICO management. There are investments which need the clearance of the Investment Committee and if they do so, I go, but I am not responsible. Q. So this is just one of those other things that involves your brother of which you are simply washing your hands? A. My Lord, I have said I am not my brother's keeper. We have to see what real life is. There are many people in this life, many brothers who do not see eye to eye and they do not poke their noses into each other's business and I have said I do not do this. My principles will not allow me. carried out its resolution to divest and if it did not, to kick up a stink? involved in any business NICO gets into which may, in my opinion, be not in line with my principles. page 4, the last three lines, "Eventually (and after the event) an independent report on investments was made and concluded that the business was considerably over-valued during the acquisition process." over-valued or under-valued, I would not know because I was
13 Q. Your principles might have caused you to ensure that NICO
16 A. My principles required me not to be involved or not to, to be
19 Q. Look at the bottom of page 4 again. The very last line on
24 A. My Lord, I was not involved in this business. Whether it was
[Page 850]
1
[Page 852]
1 2 4 5
MENGI-PRICE
MENGI-PRICE not involved. directors of NICO, the company proceeded to settle the difference, making the whole investment add up to 1.7 billion.
2 Q. That is a truly remarkable omission. 3 A. My Lord, if you go to page 5 in the same report it says, first 4 5 6
3 Q. If we read on, on page 5, for reasons best known to the
paragraph, my Lord, last sentence, "Furthermore, the investment proposal was not discussed by the Investment Committee as required by its terms of reference."
6 A. Yes, my Lord I was not a director of the company. 7 Q. That was, as it happens, one month before you became a 8 10 11 13 14 15
7 Q. Why was it not discussed by the Investment Committee? 8 A. My Lord, the Board of NICO can decide to do whatever they want 9 11 13 15 16 18 20 21 22 23 24
director of the company, was it not? company. Whether it is a difference of a day or half a day, I was not a director. so that is before they paid the final tranche of the purchase price, "...Interchem Pharma received a default notice ... (reads to the words) .... written down to nil."
with their investment. Committee? do with investment. I am not there ---required by its terms of reference to consult the Investment Committee. says or does. was no consultation with the Investment Committee and look what it says, if go back to page 4, "Doubts surround the whole deal as to what was the motivation for NICO to invest in the company without obtaining an independent review from a qualified valuer."
9 A. But the issue is, my Lord, I was not was not a director of the
10 Q. However, why would they decide not to consult the Investment 12 A. My Lord, they have the right to decide whatever they want to 14 Q. Well, they do not because it says here the company was
12 Q. Look at page 2.12 in the middle of page 5, "On 6th June...."
16 A. Yes, my Lord. 17 Q. This whole investment stinks, does it not, Mr. Mengi? 18 A. I agree with you. 19 Q. Yes. Why do you think that NICO might have chosen to go about 20 21 23 25
17 A. My Lord, I do not have control over what the Board of NICO 19 Q. Okay. So this investment, there was no due diligence, there
this extraordinary way of buying your brother's bankrupt company? of what NICO Board did. of NICO?
22 A. Please, my Lord, that I was not involved. I am not in control 24 Q. Is Mr. Mosha in any way connected with you still, the Chairman
25 A. My Lord, I do not oversee what the Board of NICO does. I do
[3] (Pages 849 to 852)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
MENGI-PRICE 2 A. In what way, my Lord. 3 Q. Does he have any business connection with you? 4 A. Mr. Mosha, I know Mr. Mosha as a businessman and, in fact, I
1 5 6
MENGI-PRICE 2 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: When did he become a director of Media 3 Solutions?
1 4 A. Some time, I think, either 2009 or 2010, my Lord. 5 MR PRICE: Have you ever had occasion to consider whether the
have put him in one of, as a Board member in one of my media
companies, called Media Solutions. 7 Q. So he is a director of Media Solutions. Yes? 8 A. Yes, my Lord. 9 Q. Also he is a director of Bonite Bottlers, too, is he not?
10 A. My Lord, that is not true. 11 Q. Just look at the Confederation of Tanzania Industries website. 12 This is the current website of the Confederation of Tanzania 13 14 15 16 17 18
Board resolution to divest is a sham, a fiction? 7 A. My Lord, I receive a document. Who am I to question the 8 document because it is company letterhead, signed by the
6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Industries. You can check that, if you like, today. It is up-to-date because there is a new posting on this website for June 2012 -- not on this page, on another one. You see the Governing Council of the Confederation of Tanzania Industries, they are all pictures and in the third row, the first of them
is you. 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. In the top row, the Chairman is Mr. Mosha, director of Bonite 21 Bottlers?
22 A. My Lord, that is total lie. I do not know where it is coming 23 from. Mr. Mosha has never, never, my Lord, been a director of
Bonite Bottlers. 25 Q. Before you made him a director of one of your media companies,
24
Chairman of the company, so why should I question that, my Lord? Q. You have no reason to question it? A. Not at all. Q. Let us just look at this. The Capital Markets and Security Authority made a pretty full investigation into the investment in Interchem Pharma, did they not? A. Yes, I hope it was full investigation, my Lord, because I do not know the nature of what happened. Q. They make absolutely no reference to any Board resolution to divest. A. My Lord, I understand that, but I do not know why they did not. It is not upon me to give the (inaudible) terms a reference. It is not upon me. Q. However, that would have made them even more surprised that the final tranche had been paid months after it a decision to divest?
[Page 854]
1 2 3
[Page 856]
MENGI-PRICE 2 A. My Lord, the decision was not mine, but that of the Board of 3 NICO.
1 4 Q. The Capital Markets and Security Authority must have looked at 5 the Board minutes for the IBPL transaction, must they not? 6 A. My Lord, I do not know, I could not tell Capital Markets to do 7 this, do that. I would not involved in Capital Markets. 8 Q. I suggest that if one were able to look at the Board minutes, 9 you would not mind that resolution there? 10 A. My Lord, I say I did not set out detailed reference for the 11 Capital Markets looking into this or into that. 12 Q. Let us look at the prospectus that the National Investment 13 Company put out in October 2007. Do you have there a file
MENGI-PRICE did you ask him what on earth he was doing buying your brother's shares in Interchem Pharma in the way that he did?
4 A. My Lord, I did not ask that question. 5 Q. You did not? 6 A. No. 7 Q. The whole thing stinks of possible fraud, does it not? 8 A. My Lord, you can call it whatever you want. I say, for me I 9 10 11 13 15 16 17 19 20 21
was not involved and I never knew whether it was fraud or not because I never investigated what happened and I did not want to make conclusions just like that. resolution to divest. why the Confederation of Tanzania Industries should describe the Chairman of its Governing Council as a director of Bonite Bottling Ltd, if that is, as you say, a complete lie? never had anything, leave alone been a director. Leave alone been a director, he has never had anything to do with Bonite Bottlers. Never.
12 Q. Let us look a little more closely at this famous Board
14 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Before we leave this document, can you think of 14
that was -- it might be the one on the very right-hand end of
18 A. My Lord, I am here under oath and I say he has never, never,
the -- that one. What does that say? 16 A. "VICTOR and NICO Documents." 17 Q. Yes, that is the file. If you look at tab D, this is dated 18 6th October 2007. You see that.
15 19 MR. RAMPTON: D or B? 20 MR. PRICE: I have it in D, which should be the prospectus. 21 MR. RAMPTON: Thank you. 22 A. Yes, 6th October, yes? 23 MR. PRICE: October 2007. 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Two months after the Board resolution to divest IBPL. Yes?
22 MR PRICE: However, he is a director of one of your companies? 23 A. I said Media Solutions, yes, I agree, but never -- I do not 24 25
know where this document has come from, but my Lord, he has never, never, never had anything to do with Bonite Bottlers.
[4] (Pages 853 to 856)

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
MENGI-PRICE Interchem Pharma? A. Yes. Q. Let us look what it says. Look at page xii, near the beginning of this document. Do you have xii? A. Is this a letter from the Chairman? Q. Yes. A. Yes, I have it. Q. That is a picture of Mr. Mosha, who is a director of one of your companies? A. Yes. Q. If you look just below the bottom punch hole, in the middle of that paragraph, do you see it says, "NICO was also able to take a position"? Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. "For 51% of Interchem...." A. I am sorry? Q. Do you see the paragraph that begins just below the lower punch hole? A. Yes. Q. That paragraph starts, "The NICO Board would like to assure...." Do you have that? A. Yes. Q. If you go to the middle of that paragraph, there is a sentence that starts, "NICO was also able to take a position." Do you
1 2
MENGI-PRICE billion shillings for investment? to propose, was to look into investments and forward them to the Board and not prospectors. looked with particular interest to see what it had to say about the investment in Interchem Pharmaceutical?
3 A. My Lord, I cannot remember now whether I did it. My job was 4 5
6 Q. I suggest that you would have looked at it and you would have 7 8
9 A. I did not, my Lord. 10 Q. Go forward to page 20. 11 A. What now? 12 Q. Page 20, in the same document? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. This is the section headed "Investment in Interchem 15 16
Pharmaceutical and Beverages Limited." "IPL is a private company ... (reads to the words) .... 4.4 billion...."
17 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Sorry, Mr. Price, where is that? 18 MR. PRICE: Page 20, my Lord, not Roman 20. 19 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: So about ---20 MR. PRICE: About half-way -- a bit less than halfway.... 21 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: About 13 pages on from where we were looking? 22 MR. PRICE: Yes, do you have that, "Investment in Interchem 23
pharmaceutical...." Mr. Mengi?
24 A. Is that ---25 Q. I think probably you will have to go right on and look at a
[Page 858]
1 2
[Page 860]
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
MENGI-PRICE see that?
3 A. Yes. 4 Q. "For 51% of Interchem which NICO plans to formally acquire 5
after the IPO."
6 A. Yes, my Lord. 7 Q. You would have thought the Chairman might have said, "So far 8 9
from planning to formally acquire it, we are planning to sell it as soon as we can get shot of it."
10 A. My Lord, I am not in control of NICO publications. 11 Q. On the basis of what we have here, either the Board resolution 12 13 14
is a sham or the Chairman of NICO is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the public from whom he is raising 15 billion shillings.
15 A. My Lord, I have no clue what the Chairman meant. 16 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Would you just consider Mr. Price's question 17 18 20 21 22 23 25
and see if you agree that it must be one or the other? Put the question again, Mr. Price. remember, I was given an undertaking, I was shown a resolution, a Board resolution that they would disinvest. My Lord, I had no reason at all not to believe him. I had no reason not to believe him. Committee of NICO, did you look at the prospectus to raise 15
19 A. My Lord as I say, I do not know what he was doing. All I
24 Q. As a member of the, as indeed the Chairman, Investment
MENGI-PRICE page which has a normal 20, not a Roman one. Do you see that? Nearly half-way through the document. Do you have page 20 at the bottom? A. Yes. Q. Does that have near the bottom of the page, "Investment in Interchem Pharmaceutical...."? A. Yes, it has. Q. Let us look at that. "A private company located in Moshi ... (reads to the words) .... at a cost of 2.5 billion shillings." Do you see that? A. Yes, my Lord. Q. So here is NICO raising money from the public in order, amongst other things, to complete its investment in Interchem? A. Yes, my Lord. Q. There is not a mention of the fact that Board has already resolved to get rid of its investment as soon as it can? A. As I say, my Lord, I am not responsible for the publications of NICO. Q. What I am putting to you is that the Board resolution is a sham? A. My Lord, I received the resolution. I trusted, I did not have any reason not to believe it was a genuine resolution. Until even late now, I do not have any reason to think it was not correct, it was not right and I have no reason to believe
[5] (Pages 857 to 860)

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
MENGI-PRICE there was anything wrong. Q. Then if you go forward to tab E, we see here the 2007 annual report, which was signed on the 15th -- I am so sorry, it is the next tab. It is tab E. A. Yes, my Lord. Q. That is the 2007 annual report. In fact, these accounts were signed, as one can see -- you need not turn it up, it is on pages 21 and 22 -- 15th July 2008, about ten days before you became a director of NICO. Is that right? They were signed on 15th July 2008. A. Which one, please? Q. It is page 22, if you want to look at it. You see, they were signed on 15th July 2008? A. Yes, my Lord. Q. You became a director on 26th July 2008? A. Yes, my Lord. Q. Did you look at this annual report? A. I cannot remember, my Lord. Q. One would have thought that you might have done. It was a company that you were just about to become a director of. A. My Lord, I did not see this. Q. You did not see it? A. No. Q. Okay. Look at page 9. This is Mr. Mosha again, is it not?
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
MENGI-PRICE jump about ten lines, do you see there is a sentence that begins -- we are on page 10. A. Yes. Q. Jumping ten lines or so, do you see a sentence that begins, Arrangements are being made...." Do you see that? A. Which paragraph? Q. It is the first paragraph and it is about 15 lines in. It is about halfway through the first paragraph. Do you see? A. Yes, I see that. Q. "Arrangements are being made to eject the ... (reads to the words) .... growth and better performance." A. Yes, my Lord. Q. This company is making no effort whatsoever to divest itself of the investment, is it? A. My Lord I received an undertaking or, rather, confirmation of action taken by the Board of NICO. I trusted them. I had no reason not to trust them, my Lord. Q. Let us look at your resignation letter of September 2009. That is in the clip that was produced this week. A. Yes, my Lord. Q. Do you have your resignation letter of 3rd September 2009? A. Yes. Q. Does your Lordship have it? This is in the separate clip that arrived earlier this week, my Lord.
[Page 862]
MENGI-PRICE A. Yes, my Lord. 3 Q. We have Swahili on the left and English on the right? 4 A. Yes, my Lord. 5 Q. Right in the middle of the page, he refers to the completion 6 of preparations for the IPO, the fundraising, the 15 billion 7 fundraising? 8 A. Yes, my Lord. 9 Q. If you go to page 10, top of the page, "NICO strengthened its 10 participation in Interchem, which upon completion of the 11 on-going restructuring exercise, NICO will own 65% of the IBPL 12 shares." Do you see that? 13 A. So the report says, my Lord. 14 Q. Pardon. 15 A. I see, yes. 16 Q. Well, either that is grossly misleading or the Board 17 resolution is a sham? 18 A. My Lord, I had no control over NICO publications. 19 Q. However, you will agree with my proposition, will you not? 20 A. I say I did not have control. 21 Q. Just give an answer. Am I not right in saying that either 22 that is grossly misleading or the Board resolution was a sham? 23 One or the other. 24 A. I will say there is certainly something wrong. 25 Q. There certainly is something wrong. If you would then just
1 2
1
[Page 864]
MENGI-PRICE
2 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. 3 MR. PRICE: Probably at the end of it. A letter to Mr. Mosha of 4
3rd September 2009.
5 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. 6 MR. PRICE: So having stepped up on to the Board in July 2008, in 7
September 2009 you resigned?
8 A. Yes, my Lord. 9 Q. If we look at this letter, "Please refer to my letter of 10
3rd August...."
11 A. Yes, my Lord. 12 Q. Then you summarise what you say. Now look at the paragraph at 13 14
the bottom of the page: "I deferred my resignation then ... (reads to the words) .... in such investment."
15 A. Yes, my Lord. 16 Q. What does that mean? 17 A. What it says in this letter. 18 Q. Can you explain what it means? It strikes me as gobbledygook. 19 A. My Lord, for me I go by my principles and ethical business is 20
part of my principles.
21 Q. I am asking you to explain what that sentence means? 22 A. Can I read it? 23 Q. Just read it to yourself. 24 A. Okay, thank you. (Pause) My Lord, that is what I did to file 25
my resignation and until something was done and in this case
[6] (Pages 861 to 864)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
1 2 3
MENGI-PRICE it was to disinvest from NICO -- from Interchem. I did not mean anything different. Mr. Mosha, "I deferred my resignation because the Board resolved to sell its shares in Interchem." approach (inaudible). We may mean different things, the same thing but from different approaches, different angles (inaudible). saying the Board resolved to divest because you knew that the Board resolution was a sham? say, I trusted and I believed that the document given to me was a genuine document and I had no reason not to believe in what I received from NICO. Committee of NICO? cannot remember the exact date, but I remember during the first IPO because my name was mentioned, so I must have been Resident Committee Chairman from the very beginning, my Lord.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
MENGI-PRICE Committee and NICO management provide the secretariat, become acting secretariat over Investment Committee for that purpose. Then the management of NICO, after Investment Committee has done its job, writes a report including our views on the investment and forward that report to the Board. So this one was not done. It is during, I was invited to the meeting by the Chairman of NICO to bless the investment in Interchem. That was the first time I knew something was going on between NICO and Interchem and I did not attend that meeting. I refused to attend that meeting.
4 Q. Mr. Mengi, it is perfectly simple; all you had to say was, to 5 6
7 A. I understand your point of view; also, try to understand my 8 9 10
11 Q. I suggest that you put gobbledygook in your letter instead of 12 13
12 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: When was that? 13 A. This was before the business was done. I cannot remember the 14
14 A. My Lord, that is an interpretation and I respect it, but as I 15 16 17
date, my Lord. I cannot remember the exact date, today.
15 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Thank you. Mr. Price? 16 MR. PRICE: Well, just going back to your witness statement, 17 18 19 20 21
then -- perhaps you would like to look at it again in file 2. You can put aside that other file now, if you want to. Take file 2, which you can see on your right-hand side. That is the one. Go to tab 1, page 43 again, paragraph 102. "In 2007 I resigned."
18 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: When had you become Chairman of the Investment 19 20 A. My Lord, it is the very early stages of setting up NICO. I 21 22 23
22 A. Yes. 23 Q. I suggest that that is highly misleading because the truth is 24 25
24 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: When was that? A year would help. 25 A. Could be 2003, 2004, around that time. I cannot remember the
that you did not resign until 2009 and there is a great deal more to this than you have said there?
[Page 866]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25
[Page 868]
MENGI-PRICE 2 A. My Lord, to resign requires two-way communication. One 3 communication is for me to say "I have resigned". The second
1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MENGI-PRICE exact date, my Lord, but it will be an early stage. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Then in 2006, NICO made a substantial investment in Interchem and you say you were not asked about that at all? A. Not at all, my Lord. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: What was your brother's stake in Interchem? A. My Lord, at that time I did not know the details of his stake in the company, but I knew he was the founder. He had (inaudible) shareholding at that time -- when I knew about it; later on, I found out that he had sold some shares to some other people. However, as I have been saying, my Lord, I have very little to do with my brother's businesses, but he was the founder and because I did not know, because of his business I do not even know when he sold shares to other people. this, but when did you first learn that NICO had invested in Interchem without your being consulted? new project, it comes from management to the Investment Committee. NICO management acts as secretariat for such meeting of the Investment Committee. After the management has done all the due diligence and so forth and they are comfortable about the investment, the investment then comes to, they hold a meeting, they call a meeting of the Investment
16 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: I cannot remember whether you have been asked
19 A. My Lord, normal procedure is that any proposal to invest in a
communication, my Lord, is for the other party to say, "Yes we have received your letter of resignation and we agree." However, you may resign, write in a resignation and may be declined. "We think you should consider your resignation. You are upset about this thing and that and that. Steps will be taken. Please stay on." So it is not one-way communication. I did resign. Q. I suggest that it was highly misleading to exhibit a copy only of 3rd August 2007 resignation letter? A. My Lord, for not including all the correspondence, I do apologise, but it was not intentionally done. Q. Well, you will see what the consequence might have been. My Lord might have presumed that you resigned and that was it and that it was all in protest at an investment in the company in which Benjamin Mengi had an interest, so that in truth there was really no problem about all of this. You were distancing yourself from Benjamin Mengi. A. My Lord, I say I do, I feel it is not right, all communications were not there and I take that responsibility and I say I am sorry for that, but no ill intention, my Lord.
[7] (Pages 865 to 868)

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
MENGI-RAMPTON RE-EXAMINATION BY MR. RAMPTON Q. Just a very few questions, Mr. Mengi. You think you became Chairman of the Investment Committee in 2003 or 2004? A. Probably, I cannot remember the date, my Lord. Q. Have you got that clip, that little clip of documents, including the report of the Securities Authority, of, it looks like mid-2009? It does not have a date on it. The pages are not numbered. It looks like that. Capital Markets and Securities Authority. A. Yes. Q. It is attached to a letter from the Chief Executive Officer. It is addressed to the Chairman of NICO. Do you know the one I mean? A. Yes, my Lord. Q. It looks like that. Could you please turn to page 4 of this document? Do you have page 4? A. Yes, my Lord. Q. At the bottom of the page, the heading 2.1, "Investment in IPBL." A. Yes. Q. 2.1.1, it says, "The company invested 1.7 million shillings ... (reads to the words) .... level of liability...." and so on. Then over the page, please, this is a piece that Mr. Price did not draw your attention to. Top
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
MENGI-RAMPTON Q. D and the document is the prospectus. It has got a green cover. It is NICO's prospectus. And on page 20, Arabic 20, at the bottom of the page, there is a section headed D.2.4. Have you got that? The reference to IPBL? A. I am sorry, I am loss. Q. No, no, you need this file here, it does not have a name. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: "VECTOR and NICO Documents" says mine. MR. PRICE: It is the one on your right-hand side which does not have a file number on it. So the third from the right, I think.
12 A. "VECTOR and NICO Documents." 13 MR. RAMPTON: That is the one. 14 A. What page, please. 15 Q. Tab D and page 20. It is difficult to read, but it is in 16
black on green in a green circle at the bottom of the page.
17 A. 20? 18 Q. 20, ordinary 20. 19 A. Yes, my Lord. 20 Q. It is the section at the bottom of the page, headed, 21 22
"Investment in (?)Intercam Pharmaceuticals and Beverages Limited". Do you see that?
23 A. Yes, my Lord. 24 Q. It says: "Private company engaged in pharmaceuticals and 25
beverage operations", the company is located in Moshi
[Page 870]
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 872]
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
MENGI-RAMPTON of the page, the first paragraph, the last sentence of the first paragraph: "Furthermore, the investment ... (reads to the words) .... in June 2008." When did you first hear, Mr. Mengi, of that investment? A. Which one? The payment or the investment ---Q. Well, you refer to it already in your letter of 3rd August 2007. Do you know when you first heard that it had happened? A. I cannot remember the exact date, my Lord. Q. It says there -- this is not NICO speaking, this is the Capital Markets and Securities Authority after an investigation in 2009. "Furthermore, the investment proposal ... (reads to the words) .... by the terms of reference." Is that correct or is it not? A. Yes, it is. Q. Do you know who told them that? Who told the Authority that it had never been ---A. My Lord, I did not ---Q. You do not know. It was not you? A. It was not me, my Lord. Q. Finally this, Mr. Mengi, on page 20 of -- can you take the other file, what I call the cross-examination file? We have got to find the right document at the right tab. Will you bear with me a moment. It is tab D. A. Which file is this?
MENGI-RAMPTON municipality, currently has total assets amounting to 4.4bn shillings, with capacity of an annual turnover of 5bn. The original investors in IPPL, i.e. Mac Group. Do you know anything about Mac Group? A. I know Mac Group in Tanzania. Q. Is that anything to do with you? A. Nothing at all. Q. What do they do, Mac Group? A. They are in banking, they are in industry, and I think they are also mining. Q. Yes, I see. Mac Group, Ben Mengi, that is your brother? A. Yes, my Lord. Q. Milly Mengi, is that his wife who I think is now deceased? A. Yes, my Lord. Q. And (?)Jonas Kipo Kohler, who is he? Do you know him? A. I know him but as an individual, not very close, not very close. Q. Do you ever do business with him? A. Nothing, my Lord. Q. What sort of thing does he do, do you know? A. No, my Lord. Q. Finally, then, over the page, I will read the whole of the first part: "By using DC evaluation appraisal approach and based on IPPL" -- I remind you this is in October 2007 --
[8] (Pages 869 to 872)

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
MENGI-RAMPTON "historical financial performance ....(reads to the words).... Nicol's board and management decided to take the necessary and calculated risk on investing in IPPL." It is the fact, is it not, as I think you already confirmed, Mr. Mengi, you were not at this date a director of NICOL? A. It is true, my Lord. Q. So you were not a party to this decision? A. It is true, my Lord. Q. And as you have confirmed, you were not told about it because it did not come before the Investment Committee? A. It is true, my Lord. Q. The last bit of this, at the top: "It is also worth mentioning that although one of the original shareholders is related to one member of the Investment Committee ....(reads to the words).... NICOL would like to confirm that the agreement was signed at arm's length." That is a reference, is it not, to your brother Benjamin as one of the original shareholders in IPPL? A. Yes, my Lord. Q. And you are the person to whom he is related? A. Yes, my Lord. Q. Who gave the board that information, do you know? A. I have no clue, my Lord. Q. Sorry, not you?
CLOSING - DEFENDANT 2 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes, Mr. Price. 3 MR. PRICE: My Lord, I hope you have the written closing
1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
submissions and I hope you also have the defendant's skeleton argument for the trial, which are the two principal documents. As I say at the beginning of the closing submissions, we have tried not to repeat in the closing submissions but if I could emphasise that the skeleton argument still remains very much part of and should be treated as incorporated. Some areas I am going to cover quite lightly because I know your Lordship likes to have things in writing, and I will take it that your Lordship will refer back to our written submissions which I think really cover everything. The closing submissions your Lordship sees are covered under a number of headings. I think the ones that are probably going to occupy most time now are going to be the justification and credibility sections which are the ones that deal with the oral evidence at the trial on which your Lordship will want to hear what our submissions are. The starting point, as your Lordship sees, is still a short section on the old question of real and substantial tort. It is not as if I am asking your Lordship to say, "Well, this is all an abuse and so I am going to strike it out," or anything like that. We have rather gone beyond that. Your Lordship has tried the case out in full and will make
[Page 874]
MENGI-RAMPTON A. Not me. 3 Q. Then they say: "NICOL would like to confirm that the 4 agreement was signed at arm's length." Do you have any 5 knowledge of that one way or the other? 6 A. Not at all, my Lord. 7 Q. Finally this, which Mr. Price, I am afraid, did not put 8 directly to you but I will because it is the implication, were 9 you party to any kind of sham or fraud in relation to this 10 investment in your brother's company? 11 A. Never, my Lord. 12 Q. How do you feel about that suggestion? 13 A. I feel bad. To start with I am very principled. I am a man 14 who believes in ethical business and that is why I am what 15 I am today. It is, my Lord, very disturbing to be associated 16 with the evils and vices that you fight against all the time. 17 It is painful. 18 MR. RAMPTON: Thank you. 19 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Thank you, Mr. Mengi. 20 THE WITNESS: Thank you, my Lord. 21 (The witness withdrew) 22 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Mr. Price, shall we break off now and then 23 I will hear from you at a quarter to 12. 24 MR. PRICE: Yes, my Lord. 25 (Short adjournment)
1 2
[Page 876]
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 - DEFENDANT decisions on the substantive defences. It is, nevertheless, important, we submit, as a backdrop to this case because there are significant elements of abuse in this whole case. Going back to the skeleton argument, if your Lordship has it there, there is a section which starts on page 12 of it about the pre action correspondence. I am not going to take your Lordship through this but your Lordship will remember that when this all started in March 2010 it was essentially a complaint about the letter direct to the Coca Cola company. A number of other things were mentioned but that is really the spurt of this action, we say, and what has caused the concern to the claimant. When it proved impossible to sue on that, because it was an American publication and although jurisdiction could have been founded here simply by virtue of Miss Hermitage's presence within the jurisdiction, the double action ability rule which has been preserved for defamation, although it has gone for everything else, would have applied, and so the claimant would have run up against the impossibility of proving that it was actionable by American law. Consequently, he could not sue on that. So, your Lordship will remember that there was then a pause of four months during which, obviously, people were thinking again and then back came the letter in September 2010 in which the selected publications for suing on were set out.
[9] (Pages 873 to 876)

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 - DEFENDANT Then if your Lordship goes forward to page 17 of the skeleton argument, there are the submissions on whether there is a real and substantial tort to be found in the website publication, the five website publications which are contained there. The position is simply, we say, that if one looks at the case on the website publication, one finds very little evidence of effort on the part of the claimant to prove publication of it at all, and virtually no effort to show any injury resulting therefrom. When one looks at the emails, one sees that he has chosen emails to the Lutheran Church and to AMI which do not really seem to have caused him too much trouble, although I accept that Mr. Mengi's evidence is, and this is not challenged, that he did not attend the AMI conference because of the letter to AMI. Just glancing at the skeleton argument on this, your Lordship sees at paragraph 31 that it was made quite clear in the defence and in correspondence that evidence would be needed to show publication of the website, and to show that there was a real and substantial tort arising out of it. At paragraph 34 on page 19, there is the remarkable paragraph 135 of the claimant's witness statement (page 19 of the skeleton argument) where it is quoted: "A good number of my colleagues and acquaintances told me at the time" whatever
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
CLOSING - DEFENDANT claimant's side may have been taking their leave from Tugendhat J who said, "I would expect little time will be spent at the trial on the issue of who read the words complained of on the blog and in what jurisdiction." The whole case has shifted away from damages, in other words from compensation for past injury because there just, as I have already tried to outline, there just is not any real evidence of any past injury. It has all shifted now on to the injunction. But there the position is no better. One must remember that one is here looking to see whether the enormous expenditure of effort, time, and costs, and court time on this complex piece of litigation is really worth a candle in the Jameel terms. Is it not too late for that?
15 MR. PRICE: Perhaps it is. 16 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: You did not persuade Tugendhat J to strike it 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 25
out so does it matter whether the website was read by 100 people, 1,000 people, or 10,000 over the years. it does not matter that he cannot show a substantial tort to date. He says, "Look, it is still there. I want an injunction." Looking at that just a little bit more closely, as regards the emails, looking at the correspondence it is pretty apparent that at least one of the emails, the Coca Cola email, caused the claimant some concern, and it may be that
19 MR. PRICE: I ask your Lordship to stand back from this and maybe
[Page 878]
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 880]
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 - DEFENDANT that means "that they had visited the Defendant's website or have now confirmed that they did." That suggests there has been a trawl. "Amongst these are Dr. Mohan Kaul, who resides in the United Kingdom. He told me at the time that he had visited the website and had been shocked at the allegations...." As evidence of (a) publication and (b) injury in a heavy defamation case of that kind, that is close to non-existent because one finds that not a single former colleague or acquaintance is mentioned except Dr. Kaul, and one now sees from Dr. Kaul that -- if I can find the reference and I do not as your Lordship to turn up the letter but the reference is in paragraph 3 of the closing submissions, 1.2(c)180A -- Dr. Kaul when he writes to the defendant, his attitude is really this is nothing to do with the Commonwealth Business Council and the commonwealth Business Council would not be paying any attention to it unless and until there were some findings resulting from legal proceedings. It is quite striking that he is the only person who Mr. Mengi is able to name as having read the website. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: But, Mr. Price, does that matter for present purposes? I do not follow to what the real and substantial tort point is relevant now other than you say the whole action is oppressive, and I understand that submission, but the
CLOSING - DEFENDANT some of the others did too. One might say, he wanted to put a stop to that because it contains, as he says, unjustified libels. But on the evidence before your Lordship, and indeed on anything that the other side have known for a long time, the words complained of, none of the allegations complained of have appeared in any email or letter, or other communication, apart from the website, since 2010. This whole enormous caravan has achieved its effect at the outset is all one can say. Then if one is looking at the website, so forgetting the emails for a moment and just focusing on the website, we have really a remarkable position in which, if I am right that he cannot show a real and substantial tort over the last three years during when the website is up, the question is, why do we then have to have this enormous expenditure of costs and time to have it taken down for the future. The presumption must be that it is not going to cause a real and substantial tort in the future either, unless there is some special reason for it. I am not pressing this too hard because we are where we are, as I have said, but when one gets to the bottom of this we say there is abuse there and the abuse is because the motivation for this action is really the Coca Cola letter and letters, for example, of the World Bank and the International
[10] (Pages 877 to 880)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
1 2 3 4 6 7
CLOSING - DEFENDANT Finance Corporation. What is being done is that the claimant is trying to get an injunction in this jurisdiction to restrain publications which are not tortious. now that we are where we are, do you have a defence to the claim and if you do, then the claim is dismissed.
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
5 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: But is the right order in which to do things
8 MR. PRICE: Correct. 9 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: If you do not and the claimant succeeds, then 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
is an injunction a proper remedy and, if so, in what terms. It seems at the moment you are beginning with the remedy rather than beginning with the ---what I respectfully submit that I am doing is just setting a backdrop. Normally, one starts with a libel case in which if there is not a defence the claimant has really something to complain about. I am saying that one is starting from a position that before one even looks to see whether he has a defence he actually does not have anything much to complain about. It is simply against that backdrop, and I do not mean to and it is not sensible to push it any further than that at the moment. Just going to the next section, which is meaning and comment, this is all dealt with in the skeleton argument, starting at page 28. Meaning is obviously the starting point
13 MR. PRICE: I quite see how your Lordships thinks. Actually,
CLOSING - DEFENDANT in that way what it boils down to is perfectly clear, that there is a straight accusation of not honouring promises made at the meeting, and that opens the question, obviously, whether the promises were made. There is the allegation of lying which we say implies that he never had any intention of keeping those promises. We also say as a comment, and I will come back to that, that is the one aspect of it, and the other aspect is involvement in corruption involving Benjamin Mengi. It is just on that your Lordship can see there are full submissions on this in the skeleton argument but just on that, one does need to look at the website in context here. Anybody who read this website and one of the curious features of this case is because we have absolutely no evidence of publication at all, we do not have any indication of how people would have got to the bits about Reginald on the website. We say that it is simply not right to pick out the words complained of and read them in isolation. They have to be read in their context. It may be unrealistic to say they have to be read in the context of an individual who has read all 142 pages of the website, but they do presume a degree of familiarity from what one finds elsewhere on the website. From that, very quickly when one starts reading the website at the beginning, which is the back of it, the earliest ones, it becomes quite clear what the roles were.
[Page 882]
1 2 3 4
[Page 884]
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 - DEFENDANT for looking at justification. If your Lordship has page 28 of the skeleton argument ---might be able to agree, in opening Mr. Rampton said that although there is a great deal of repetition in the various website publications, it really boils down to two linked charges: One, that Mr. Mengi broke promises given at the meeting with Dr. Pocock of which there were three, (a) to stop hostile or defamatory coverage of the Silverdale dispute, (b) to see to or to sort out Benjamin, and (c) to pay the defendant's and Mr. Middleton's costs of defending Benjamin's action.
5 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Just a moment, one thing perhaps Mr. Rampton 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 MR. PRICE: Yes. 16 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Charge 2, that the media campaign was designed 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
corruptly to assist Benjamin in ousting the defendant and Mr. Middleton by harassment and intimidation. That is not from the transcript, that is from a note of what Mr. Rampton was saying orally. But it seems to me that whatever you might disagree about, it may be that rather than going through each of the website publications line byline, that one ought to stand back and say, what does it boil down to. I do not know whether that is a proper way of doing it.
25 MR. PRICE: Yes, your Lordship is clearly right and looking at it
CLOSING - DEFENDANT The roles are "Benjamin Mengi intimidating and harassing us off the farm with assistance by corruptly getting police and courts to help him out." That is point one. Two, Reginald Mengi assisting by conducting a defamatory campaign. It is quite clear that that is how Reginald Mengi comes in: his newspapers are running the defamatory campaign and in that way he is assisting the corrupt efforts of his brother. The notion that anybody who understood the general message of the website thought that Mr. Reginald Mengi was involved in the process of trying to grab the farm simply has not understood the position. They would understand that the position was that Mr. Mengi's newspapers were helping his brother along. We say that that is just fired up to the hilt but I will come on to that in a moment. The only thing I would say, and it is quite a large part of the meanings in the pleading, it has Mr. Mengi directing and controlling the media campaign, we say that that is not to be found in the words complained of, and particularly not the emails. I might just ask your Lordship to look at the emails for a moment on this. Probably the easiest place to look at them is in the pleading file 1.1. Your Lordship may have become accustomed to looking at them somewhere else. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: No, the pleading will do fine.
[11] (Pages 881 to 884)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
CLOSING - DEFENDANT 2 MR. PRICE: The first of them is the church email, which is on 3 page 38 of bundle 1.1. Your Lordship sees that it all starts, 4 indeed the whole of page 39 is all devoted to a description of
1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
CLOSING - DEFENDANT assistance is the newspapers running this defamatory campaign in Dar es Salaam. I think, really, in a nutshell that probably encapsulates most of what we say but your Lordship sees it is all set out there. The only thing I think I should do is to cite a European Human Rights case called, Kulis v Poland, which your Lordship probably has. I will just take your Lordship through that quite quickly.
Mr. Benjamin Mengi's efforts of violence and harassment and facilitated by police and judiciary. At the bottom of the page, on page 39, "costly and vexatious litigation within a corrupt legal system." One sees where the corruption comes in. One only gets to Reginald Mengi on page 40 where one finds that what is said, there is a particular aspect, "the continued harassment against us including defamation campaign by the local organisation, IPP. It is clearly said that it is IPP Media which is running the campaign." Then that is much criticised in the rest of that paragraph. Then we come to Reginald. The relevance to it is that IPP Media is owned and run by Mr. Reginald Mengi. Certainly there is an implication there that he cannot therefore altogether dissociate himself from it. Then it is said that they both hold themselves out as staunch followers of the church. Over the page, at the top of the page, page 41, we come to the Pocock meeting and very importantly, in about line 8 or 9, Mr. Mengi stated that he was not aware of the defamatory publications and that as chief executive officer of IPP Media, i.e. not the editor, he could not be held responsible for
10 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Have we been given a copy? Is it in my file? 11 MR. PRICE: I do not know where it has gone. It is a newish one. 12 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: It came this morning. Carry on. 13 MR. PRICE: This is on the lying front which we say is comment. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
The reason in the skeleton argument that we just characterised as just comment is simply this. The reason why Miss Hermitage says that he was lying is because she takes the view that he never had any intention of honouring those promises. That is what it means. So the question is, is that fact or comment, to which the answer is to be found in Branson v Bower, really. That is intentions and motives, something that nobody would imagine that Miss Hermitage had any direct knowledge of. It is clearly an inference and on authority inferences, providing that the reader can recognise them as such, are comment. We say that lying is a comment. All that is set out in the
[Page 886]
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 888]
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 - DEFENDANT them. So, Mr. Mengi's position is quite clearly stated. It is not stated that he directed and controlled. It is stated his position is, and if one looks through the rest of it that is actually nowhere contradicted in the email, the reader is left to judge for himself about that. The point that is being made one then comes to at the top of page 41, "At the meeting Mr. Mengi promised to stop. Actually, here the promises are ....(reads to the words).... far from diminishing, the IPP Media publications escalated." Well, again I am diverting a bit but your Lordship will know that on what is common ground he knew perfectly well what his media were up to because it was drawn to his attention at the Pocock meeting and it was then drawn to his attention in letter to him personally from Mr. Middleton, and he decided not to do anything about it. It is quite difficult to see how even just on that basis Mr. Mengi can get out of this. He knew all about it and he just did not do anything about it. So, that is why we say that the meaning suggests that he controlled and directed this campaign, when one actually looks at the publications it is not really there. Clearly, what is there is the not honouring the promises and indeed lying, and the assisting a corrupt campaign. Again, in context, it is quite clear what is meant, the corruption is in Moshi and the
CLOSING - DEFENDANT skeleton argument, in the section on page 30 and 31. I need not say more about that. Here are actually two ECHR cases which decide that lying is or can be a value judgment. As so often, your Lordship will appreciate, that if the words complained of are simply so and so is a liar, he is not a man you cant rust, he is a liar, with absolutely not context to it at all, that is very likely to be taken as an allegation of fact. On the other hand, if the context is given, as in this instance, one can in fact see that what the publisher is doing is drawing their own inference, and that is what we say is being done here. To Kulis, if your Lordship looks at paragraph 7, on page 2, in 1992 Mr. Kern, who was then the deputy speaker of the Sejm, which I think is the Polish Parliament, notified the prosecutor that Mr. and Mrs. Gassior had kidnapped his daughter. However, Mr. and Mrs. Gassior submitted that the allegation was false as the daughter had run away from home and had only been accompanied by their son who had been her boyfriend for a long time. That is the context. Then the alleged libel is in paragraph 11: In 1992 the applicant, the applicant to the European Court of Human Rights, Mr. Kulis, published in his magazine an interview with a lawyer who was representing Mr. and Mrs. Gassior. Then the article, which is quite a long one, is set out and the
[12] (Pages 885 to 888)

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 - DEFENDANT relevant bit is at the bottom of page 3, where MP, that is quoting the lawyer, "he has obviously abused power, that is Mr. Kern because the speaker of the parliament, he had access to the media and gave false information. The fact that he is a liar I can prove if necessary in court. I authorise...." MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Sorry, I cannot find this. MR. PRICE: It is at the bottom of page 3, my Lord. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. MR. PRICE: "Abused power....had access to the media....gave false information....the fact that he is a liar I can prove if necessary in court. I authorise you to print this text. Mr. Kern says he is not a liar. I will prove the contrary." That ended up as the centrepiece of the defamation. Then, as your Lordship sees at paragraph 13, Mr. Kern and his wife brought an action against the publisher, a civil action, for protection of their personal rights. It was a defamation action. At paragraph 14, one sees that this is the judgment of the lower Polish court, about six lines in: "The article includes not only information but statements that damage their reputation. It was a libel action." Near the end of the quote from the lower court, finally calling Mr. Kern a liar, stating that he abused power obviously harmed his good name, and so on and so forth. On that basis, the libel action succeeded in the Polish
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 - DEFENDANT be subject to exceptions, they must be narrowly interpreted and the necessity for restrictions must be convincingly established. You have to show a pressing social need." Then one comes to the nob of it. One sees at paragraph 45 that the claimants in the libel action had been awarded damages of 2,200 euros. Paragraph 47, the court reiterates that the limits of critical comment are wider if a public figure is involved. Just pausing there, in this context we would certainly submit that Mr. Mengi, while he is not a politician, he is most certainly a public figure, not merely because he is a very prominent businessman but because he is a media proprietor and very much reported within Tanzania. Then in the context of public debate, this is five lines into paragraph 47, "The role of the press as a public watchdog allows journalists to have recourse to a certain degree of exaggeration, provocation, or harshness. It is true that whilst an individual taking part in a public debate on a matter of general concern like the applicant in the present case is required not to overstep certain limits as regards respect for reputation and rights of others ....(reads to the words).... is allowed a degree of exaggeration or even provocation, in other words to make somewhat immoderate statements." That again is, as your Lordship will know, very
[Page 890]
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 892]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
CLOSING - DEFENDANT court. Then one has the appellate proceedings starting in paragraph 17. The Polish Court of Appeal, paragraph 19, very near the bottom of the page, "following the case law", this is what the Polish appeal court did, "Following the case law relating to article 10, a politician should show more tolerance when exposed to criticism," and then the court said, "it is a different matter, however, with regard to the allegation that Mr. Kern was a liar does not have the character of a legal opinion." They dismissed the appeal. Paragraph 21, the Polish Supreme Court dismissed it. Then there is the domestic law of Poland set out at paragraph 23, and paragraph 26, we have article 10 set out, because the publisher was complaining that the judgment against him breached his article 10 right. Then as usual they go through the submissions and at paragraph 36 we start the court's assessment and the usual jurisprudence of the court is set out. Then paragraph 39, the Court of Human Rights says, "One factor of particular importance is the distinction between statements of fact and the value judgments." Then it sets out the usual European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence on that, you cannot prove the truth of a value judgment so you must not make people justify them. Then paragraph 40, "Although freedom of expression may
CLOSING - DEFENDANT commonly recurs throughout the jurisprudence. Then paragraph 51, one sees the decision: "The court is of the view that some of the statements for which the application was found to have infringed ....(reads to the words).... a similar position has been taken by the court in another case involving a public figure who had been called a liar." Then there is a reference to Azevedo. I have not given your Lordship that. It is to similar effect and in fact it is only available in French. I am sure your Lordship speaks perfect French but it is easier to follow in English. We say quite simply that "a liar" is comment in the context of this case. I think I probably do not need to do more on meaning except to invite your Lordship to look at our skeleton argument where the argument is fully set out. to argue, when the time comes, that the website article of 31st January ----
16 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Before you leave meaning, I expect Mr. Rampton 17 18
19 MR. PRICE: Yes. 20 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: -- towards the end, goes beyond that, because 21 22
he put that to Miss Hermitage in cross-examination. I think it is that one.
23 MR. PRICE: Yes. Is it number 5? 24 MR. RAMPTON: It is number 5, and the answer is yes. 25 MR. PRICE: You are going to submit that?
[13] (Pages 889 to 892)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
1 3 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - DEFENDANT about it. invade the farm and steal the lease, forcing the investors from the country"; and he put to Miss Hermitage that that means that Mr. Mengi, personally, was corrupt and invaded farm and stole the lease. obvious that number 5 appended to the Statement of Claim is the sort of prime exhibit in Mr. Rampton's portfolio. But this is where it becomes quite important not only to look at what is actually being said, but to place it in its context, because this is quite a short blog which comes quite late on, and it assumes, as it must, a degree of familiarity in the reader already of the context in which this is being said. The reader is not coming to this fresh, because it is embedded in a whole website which gives the full history. In fact, one sees that it is aimed at President Kikwete, because he is saying that agriculture must be improved through investment, and so on and so forth, and Miss Hermitage says: "It would seem this commitment is nothing more than rhetoric. It fails to address the corruption involved in the Silverdale case involving Reginald and Benjamin Mengi." Now, if this came absolutely out of the blue, without any context, my learned
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
2 MR. RAMPTON: I am certainly going to make a special submission 4 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: "The Mengis have engaged in corruption to
9 MR. PRICE: Well, I quite see that, my Lord, and it is pretty
CLOSING - DEFENDANT your Lordship of. The first of them is, naturally, that the claimant did indeed give the assurances. The second of them is a fallback position to that, because it is rather remarkable, we say, that the claimant has ended up, through his counsel, espousing Mr. Pocock's evidence that the claimant said he would look into the coverage. Now, in evidence, rather surprisingly, Mr. Mengi was not prepared to deny that he said that. One would have expected him to say, "Well, don't be silly. Of course I didn't say any such thing, because, as I have said 50 million times, I absolutely never get involved in my newspapers, and so how could I look into the coverage? I am hands-off; and if I did look into it, what could I do? Nothing." No, he is not prepared to say that. He says, "I don't remember." Then Mr. Rampton makes a positive case; he put a positive case on this both to Mr. Middleton and Miss Hermitage, in cross-examination, that that was said by Mr. Mengi. It is rather remarkable, because it is entirely inconsistent with the whole of Mr. Mengi's repeated case on his non-involvement in his newspapers. More to the point, it is common ground that that promise, if given, was not honoured; he did not look into it; and not only that, it is clear that he never had any intention of doing so. That is the whole basis of his case, that he would not do such a thing. So, it is a fallback position. But if we are looking
[Page 894]
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 896]
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 - DEFENDANT friend would be entitled to say, "Look, it says that the corruption involves Benjamin and Reginald Mengi, which has destroyed agriculture investment." Then it goes on: "Both the Tanzanian Investment Centre and the Corruption Bureau have informed the President that the lease belongs lawfully to British investors and that the Mengis have involved in corruption to invade the farm and steal the lease." Again, my learned friend would be entitled, if this stood absolutely alone, to say, "Well, that means both of them." But as I say, no reader who understood anything about the context would be in any doubt about what was being said here. One, this whole Silverdale Farm case is riddled with corruption. Well, that is not in issue as a matter of fact; it was riddled with corruption. Then one has to look and say: okay, what are the roles of Benjamin and Reginald? Benjamin was the one who drove them off the farm and corrupted the police and courts; Reginald was the one who helped him with his newspapers. So, while of course Miss Hermitage must be taken as saying that Reginald Mengi is implicated in the corruption, it is in that context that she is saying it. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. Right. MR. PRICE: Justification, then -- and here we are now on to page 3 of the written submission. We start by simply summarising the propositions that we seek to convince
CLOSING - DEFENDANT for failing to honour a promise and a lie, you have it there. In fact, of course, the whole thing goes a great deal further, because this whole case is shot through with false evidence, lies and everything else, we submit firmly. But it is difficult to see how Mr. Mengi can get out of that one, on his own case. The third point that we make, which is the one that requires careful examination of the evidence, is that we say that the evidence shows -- it is quite difficult for us to get at this, because we do not have access to any witnesses who are bold enough to speak out against Mr. Mengi and we are not confident that if there was disclosure, that would help us, that it would have appeared in the disclosure. The witnesses, we say quite simply, were told to and were sticking to a party line in their evidence. So, it is not easy for us to get at this, but we say that the evidence does show, and shows pretty clearly, that the campaign in IPP Newspapers was quite deliberate. Mr. Kimambo, the key actor, up in Moshi, in the pocket of Mr. Benjamin Mengi -- there is really no other conclusion to be drawn from it -- and the people at the Guardian's offices knew perfectly well what was going on, and the claimant knew and approved too and, at best, took no steps to stop it. If that is right, everything is justified up to the hilt. So, those are the propositions that we seek to
[14] (Pages 893 to 896)

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 - DEFENDANT establish. Our starting with the assurances at the Pocock meeting, well, obviously, we simply say that Mr. Middleton is a clear and credible witness. There is not any basis for impugning his credit. Indeed, he was not cross-examined to credit. He is a man of unimpeachable honesty and reputation. He is recalling events of seven years ago. As your Lordship will recall, in cross-examination I have been quite critical of witnesses who claim to have a clear memory of things that happened seven years ago, but that is because they were recounting events which there is absolutely no reason to suppose that they should have remembered. But that is not the case with Mr. Middleton. On any view, the meeting with the High Commissioner was an unusual event for him, and an important one, because he was meeting also in Mr. Mengi's home with Mr. Reginald Mengi, the brother of his tormentor and indeed, as Mr. Middleton saw it, the author of the torment in his newspapers. Not only that, at the meeting, according to Mr. Middleton, quite unexpectedly, assurances were forthcoming which, if honoured, would have solved his problems. So, it was a memorable meeting, and one would expect it to be remembered; and moreover, there is no reason for those assurances to have faded, because they have remained significant. So, what is to be said against Mr. Middleton? Well, my
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 - DEFENDANT matter. You want to see justice done. You supported Stuart's wish legally to register his property." Well, that clearly goes quite a long way to giving an assurance. "You would try to see whether the legal case might be withdrawn and you would intervene with your brother to see what could be done to ease the situation." Broadly speaking, we do not see any essential conflicts between those. What is missing, we quite accept, is any reference to the defamatory campaign in the newspapers, although that might be rather politely encapsulated in the word "other", in "physical and other intimidation". But it is rather important to see what Mr. Pocock is doing here. He is buttering Mr. Mengi up, to an extent. Your Lordship sees that in the first paragraph: "It was a chance for both of us to make clear our respect for you personally and to seek your help." It is understandable that he should be buttering Mr. Mengi up, because he wanted him to help. So, that is first thing. So, he is not going to say, "Look, it is quite disgraceful what you have been doing in your newspapers, and jolly well stop." What he is doing is, he is focusing on what he sees as the main point, and the main point is the Silverdale Farm dispute and the registration of the lease; if that can be sorted out, there would be no further problem on any front, including the media. So, it just is not too surprising that he omits that. He is not purporting to draft
[Page 898]
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 900]
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 - DEFENDANT learned friend's exhibits are, first of all, Mr. Pocock's letter of the following day in which he does not record the assurance regarding future coverage in the IPP Media. Otherwise, we submit that Mr. Pocock's letter is essentially consistent with Mr. Middleton's evidence. Your Lordship will no doubt want to look back carefully at -- we can look at it now, I think it is in file 1.2 -- Mr. Pocock's letter. Page 196. For comparison, the comparator is Mr. Middleton's witness statement, at paragraph 46. I think if I can ask your Lordship to open that as well, it is tab 11. No, it is not. It is 12, and it is paragraph 46. Mr. Middleton, in evidence, did not like Mr. Pocock's letter. He did not think it went far enough. But my submission to your Lordship is that, actually, it is broadly consistent. At paragraph 46, this is what Mr. Middleton says: "The claimant said he would (a) speak to his brother about the harassment, (b) put a stop to the use of his media" -- well, that is not in Mr. Pocock's letter -- "(c) assist in the withdrawal of cases in court, and (d) assist in the registration of the lease." When one looks at what Mr. Pocock says: "Stuart set out his concerns, trumped up legal case, physical and other intimidation directed towards himself and his wife, Sarah, and his staff and associates, his inability to register the lease. You made clear your own position. It was possible to resolve the
CLOSING - DEFENDANT minutes of the minute; he is writing a letter for a purpose. So, that is the first of the exhibits in my learned friend's case. It is of course common ground that Mr. Middleton did raise the issue of defamatory coverage. The second part of the exhibit is the lack of reference to it in Mr. Middleton's first letter to Mr. Mengi, 24th February. No, it is not 24th February, it is 25th March, page 203, where he refers to: "....enclosed newspaper articles, many of which are published in newspapers owned by IPP. You are the Executive Chairman. Accordingly, you will note that many of the articles appeared in newspapers published subsequent to our meeting." Well, it is quite difficult to read that as anything other than a reminder that it was discussed at the meeting and, indeed, he said it would stop. Certainly, he might have gone on saying, "You promised not to do it," but it is quite likely that Mr. Middleton is assuming, as one might, that Mr. Mengi remembered what had happened at the meeting. We say simply that no conclusions can be drawn from this. Maybe it is mildly surprising that he did not put it in there, but no more than that. He did put it in the next letter, 19th April: "You personally gave an undertaking that they would cease." If one asks the question, well, why should Mr. Middleton say that if he knew it was not true, there is not an answer to that. It is a pointless lie, because he has
[15] (Pages 897 to 900)

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 - DEFENDANT quite enough justifying complaints to make of Mr. Mengi at this point, a series of highly defamatory, false and biased articles, and the total failure of his managing editor to even respond to the letters and the failure of Mr. Mengi to respond to a letter sent a month ago. So, he has quite enough to beat Mr. Mengi about the head with, without embarking on invention. It just does not make any sense. Anyway, your Lordship will no doubt have already formed your own impression of Mr. Middleton and Miss Hermitage's witnesses. Looking at the other side of the coin -- and the other side of the coin is, well, what about Mr. Mengi's denial that he gave any such assurances -- well, we say, firstly, that an obvious point is that he may have forgotten. If I could ask your Lordship to turn up the transcript on this, it is Day 1 at page 73. Your Lordship will probably remember this piece of evidence. Your Lordship, page 73, if one starts at line 16: "(Q) What I am suggesting is that it is just the sort of thing that you, wishing to smooth things over, would have said to somebody like Mr. Middleton, who you felt some sympathy for?" This is cross-examination on the promise to pay the costs. (A) My Lord, I had sympathy, and that is why I suggested I should meet him, but not sympathy to pay. (Q) I am sorry to have to ask you this, Mr. Mengi, but you were in a
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25
CLOSING - DEFENDANT brother Ben, he will scream at me, and we will get absolutely nowhere. But maybe if I tell him that the High Commissioner has asked for it, he might listen to me, but I will have a go." It is distinctly curious that that was not Mr. Mengi's response. On the contrary, his response was: "Yes, I certainly will act as a neutral mediator, and I believe it is possible to resolve this amicably." It is odd. Mr. Mengi is generally not a credible witness. That will have become very clear to your Lordship if you have even glanced through these submissions. So that is, essentially, the first point. If there is a conflict of evidence, it could well be because he has forgotten. The second point is, and we make no bones about it, if it is a matter of who is to be believed, Mr. Middleton or the claimant, there is no contest. Mr. Middleton is a witness upon whom your Lordship can place complete reliance, and Mr. Mengi is not a witness on whom the court can safely place any reliance. Your Lordship will see, as we go through these submissions, the basis on which we say that. Your Lordship will have formed his own conclusion, no doubt, already. have just said in relation to the evidence of Mr. Mengi of the meeting. Of course, that cannot be used against Dr. Pocock or
23 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: On the meeting, Mr. Price, you say what you
[Page 902]
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 904]
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 - DEFENDANT distressed state in the course of that meeting, were you not? (A) Yes. (Q) It would be fair to describe you ... you were distracted and emotional? (A) Yes. (Q) What I suggest to you is that, in your distressed state, particularly in a meeting with the High Commissioner, a man for whom you had high respect, what you were anxious to do was to smooth things over?" So, there one sees that it is common ground -- and Mr. Pocock makes some reference to this in his witness statement -- that "what you said at a meeting during which you were distracted and emotional and distressed" is not the best basis for having a particularly clear memory of what has happened. So, one can, in my submission, simply decide this issue of fact on that basis. It is a peculiarity -- this is paragraph 12 now of the written submissions -- that Mr. Mengi does not seem to have been playing particularly straight with Mr. Middleton and the High Commissioner at this meeting, in this respect: the whole thing is about "Will you help, by intervening with your brother Benjamin", and if one was contemplating a normal human being -- I do not mean that in any impolite way to Mr. Mengi -- but the normal way of answering that, on the evidence, on Mr. Mengi's evidence, would be: "Well, look, you are crying for the moon, because if I try and intervene with
CLOSING - DEFENDANT his letter. It is the things which do not appear in the Pocock letter which you have to make submissions about, rather than a difference of recollection between the two ---MR. PRICE: That I accept, but I have made my submission on Mr. Pocock's letter. To summarise, Mr. Pocock was not attempting to cover everything that was said at the meeting. So, the fact that something is omitted is simply neither here nor there. If he had produced his minutes of the meeting and it was not there, then the point your Lordship puts to me would be a very good one. That is point one. Point two is that Mr. Pocock was quite deliberately trying to phrase his letter in a way which was going to attract Mr. Mengi and get him to help with the main point, and it probably would be counterproductive to beat him about the head with the coverage in IPP Media. The better thing is to say, "Let's get the Silverdale Farm dispute resolved, and everything will fall into place." So, it is as simple as that. Now, Mr. Pocock does not say anything about it in his witness statement either, but it is quite clear that he has a fairly limited memory of what happened at the meeting, as you would expect. He does remember the coverage in IPP Media being mentioned and he does also recall Mr. Mengi saying that he would look into it. Well, Mr. Middleton is quite definite on this, that it went further than that. Quite simply, the
[16] (Pages 901 to 904)

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 - DEFENDANT omission from Mr. Pocock is not something which is decisive. It is a point, I accept. So, that is the first of our propositions. The second of our propositions speaks for itself, that Mr. Mengi did not honour the promise to look into it. The third of them is a large topic -- and this is at the bottom of page 6 of our written submissions now -- that the claimant knew of and approved IPP Newspapers' deliberate taking of sides. This is a general submission that it has been of considerable concern to us in this case, as your Lordship will understand, that the preparation of the evidence, the disclosure and the witness statements, has not been done by a solicitor of the Supreme Court in England, as is normally the position. As we say, your Lordship will no doubt remember that Lord Bingham of Cornhill said, ex-judicially I think, that judges have to be able to trust solicitors and counsel (the way he put it) "to the ends of the earth", and the reason is that if there is once doubt about that, well then, the court is simply walking in a hall of mirrors. But here there is that doubt. The disclosure and -- we know, because we have established it in evidence -- the witness statements were prepared in Mr. Nguma's department; and Mr. Nguma, above all, is a witness upon whom your Lordship can place no reliance at all. His evidence is extraordinary and admittedly, in one respect,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
CLOSING - DEFENDANT dealt, as editor of various grades, with tens of thousands of stories and he would have attended somewhere near, possibly more, 1500 editorial conferences. That is a simple calculation. On his evidence, there was absolutely nothing special about these stories on the Silverdale dispute at all. On our case, there was something special about them, because it concerned Benjamin Mengi and they knew what their marching order were in relation to Benjamin Mengi. But on his evidence, nothing special; and yet he claims to remember exactly what happened in relation to each of the articles. Well, that is a load of nonsense, we have no hesitation in submitting. The wording of his witness statement is simply formulaic; somebody has pressed a button on the word processor, so much so that the same typo appears no less than eight times at different paragraphs. It became clear that all he was really doing was talking about how normally stories are dealt with. I think the particular story in question was the 24th May Nipashe story, which, if I remember rightly, was the one which recounts "the murderous attack". No, perhaps it was not. Let me look and see. No, it was another one, actually.
22 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: It was about the magistrate being turned away. 23 MR. PRICE: Yes, that is absolutely right. Your Lordship will 24 25
recall that in his witness statement, in the usual fairly formulaic way, he says he remembers all about what happened
[Page 906]
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 908]
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 - DEFENDANT seriously misleading. So, we invite your Lordship to treat all the evidence emanating from Mr. Nguma's office with some distrust. Some of it may be true, some of it may be genuine. My learned friend will tell me that I am willing to wound and afraid to strike. What I am not afraid to do is to at least try and investigate what has been going on and to be careful about the submissions that I make. Now, where the court finds itself in a dilemma of this kind, if it is a really serious one, if there is false evidence, that part of the evidence has been shown to be false and the court can no longer rely on it, well then, ultimately, the court will dismiss the action on the Arrow Nominees v. Blackledge basis. I am not suggesting that here. But it does place the court in a dilemma. We say that, actually, on the evidence, the court gets quite a clear picture of what really went on, and one gets the clear picture partly from the fact that the witnesses are speaking to a script, which they are; and if one asks why are they, the question really answers itself. The first witness to be considered on this was Mr. Luhanga, who, as your Lordship will remember, was now the chief sub-editor of Nipashe. I took him at some length -- possibly at too great length -- through all the Nipashe articles that appear in the relevant section, in the first section in file 3. Of him, it is particularly remarkable, because there is no doubt that he would have
CLOSING - DEFENDANT there, that he discussed it with Mr. Kimambo -- I think it was Mr. Kimambo -- before the first morning conference, and had several further discussions about it with Mr. Kimambo during the day, and then they would discuss it all at the editorial conference, and the editorial conferences decided that it was all newsworthy for this, that, or the other reason. But if one looks at Day 4, page 520, one sees that it rather broke down. He was being asked about this story. At the top of the page: "(Q) Were you involved in that story at all? (A) No. I read about this story. (Q) Why were you involved in it? (A) How would I get involved -- because it was brought to me by the correspondent." I think, actually, I am dealing with a slightly different story. I am here dealing with the February 2006 story. This is a different story. I think we come on to the other story in a moment. But he made a mistake here. He says: "(A) I read about this story. (Q) Why were you not involved in it? (A) How would I get involved -- because it was brought to me by the correspondent. (Q) Well, you tell me what happened when the correspondent -- what happened when Mr. Kimambo brought you
[17] (Pages 905 to 908)

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 - DEFENDANT this story? (A) In what way? (Q) Well, you just told my Lord that Mr. Kimambo brought to you this story. Is that right? (A) Yes, I read it; and what I have explained, it was what was in here. (Q) Did you speak to Mr. Kimambo on the telephone about it? (A) That is a normal thing...." Then he is referred to his witness statements: "Is that true?" Then page 521: "(Q) You have just told my Lord a moment ago that Mr. Kimambo brought to you this story and you handled it in the normal way. (A) I did say it is a normal thing that the editor... (Q) You are just making your evidence up as you go along... (A) No. This is the normal thing." So, that was that story. It appeared pretty clear that actually he was not speaking from memory; he was just telling the court over and over again what normally happens. Then one sees again on pages 522 and 523, there is a lot more on this line, that he is really talking about normally. Then there is an example which I think I have covered
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 - DEFENDANT (A) Yes. (Q) You do not remember any of that, do you, Mr. Luhanga? (A) I did explain that, but I cannot remember." Then page 525, line 9: "(Q) The truth is that you do not remember the handling of any of these stories, do you, Mr. Luhanga? (A) I do remember that. I am explaining that. (Q) You do not remember? (A) It is you who is saying that. (Q) Well, do you say that you do remember? (A) I say that it is a long time" -- and so on and so forth. Then there is another example at page 519, if you just go back. At the bottom of page 519, lines 21 to 22, he is referred to the story of 2nd February 2006, which he is asked to read. I think I have just read this bit, have I not? I am sorry, I am getting muddled with where I am. I think I have really dealt with the paragraph at the top of page 8 of the written submission. Throughout Mr. Luhanga's evidence, one sees that the witness, in our submission, clearly had no memory of any of these things and was speaking to a script. The third point that we make on Mr. Luhanga -- this is
[Page 910]
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 912]
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 - DEFENDANT somewhere in the written submissions, but I think if one starts in the middle of page 523: "(Q) Do you remember this story being discussed at any editorial meetings? (A) Whether I was there or not there, they have to discuss about that. There would be no story that would be passed without the acceptance of the editors. (Q) But you have no particular memory of this story being discussed at the meetings? (A) I think it is a long tame to remember whether I was there or not. I cannot tell you. But the story has to be there ... that is the normal thing." "(Q) But you did not remember this story being discussed at the meetings? (A) It is a long time. I don't remember if I was there. (Q) Look at paragraph 32 of your witness statement: 'I spoke to Mr. Kimambo in the morning before the meeting and he informed me...' You do not remember any of that, do you, Mr. Luhanga?" Then suddenly: "Now I remember. Now I read, now I remember" -- suddenly, he remembers it. "(Q) 'During the course of the day I spoke to Mr. Kimambo about the story several times, but I can't remember exactly how many times.'
CLOSING - DEFENDANT in the middle of page 8 now -- a notable feature is the gross one-sidedness of the stories. Your Lordship will remember cross-examination on that, but it is very striking: the case against Mr. Middleton is always damning; it is never investigated properly; and more particularly, his side of the story is never given, not once; charges against him are reported without reporting that he denied them, and the charge is then dropped or thrown out, and that is not reported; on the contrary, it is repeated -- particularly forging the agreement, which is repeated and repeated and repeated: 8th December, 3rd January, 19th January, 20th July, all after it has been dropped. The contrast with other newspapers is pretty striking. All of that was put to Mr. Luhanga, and five times -- there are five separate examples of this -- he said it was "lack of professionalism". Now, I have given your Lordship the references to that at the bottom of page 8. Well, that will not do, quite simply, my Lord. Mr. Kimambo, who is an IPP employee, your Lordship will have noted, was clearly in the loop as regards what was going on up in Moshi in relation to the Silverdale Farm dispute, and it just is not conceivable that he never managed to find out and report what happened to the court and other cases; and nor could the staff back at base in Dar Es Salaam have failed to understand exactly what was happening, because it was contrary to all
[18] (Pages 909 to 912)

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 - DEFENDANT journalistic ethics and practice and, indeed, their own media policy. Then Mr. Mauggo -- I think I can probably finish him before one o'clock -- he is another witness who has an improbable memory amongst tens of thousands that he must have handled. He says -- as indeed all the witnesses do -- stories giving coverage to Reginald Mengi are treated like all other stories, which is absolute nonsense, as your Lordship will have seen. The prime example of this is the reference in Mr. Mauggo's witness statement to the Guardian story reporting Professor Lipumba's speech, allegedly commending Mr. Mengi. Your Lordship will remember this part of the cross-examination. When one then looks and sees how it is dealt with in all the other newspapers -- the Daily News, the African, Mwananchi, MTanzania -- highly critical of the claimant, Professor Lipumba was. So, Mr. Mauggo was asked, "Well, how does it come about that in the Guardian, Professor Lipumba commends the IPP Chairman, whereas in every other newspaper he is condemned as a racist, no less?" Well, it is perfectly clear what is going on. Mr. Mauggo said, "Well, we could not do anything about it, because the reporter did not tell us those bits of Professor Lipumba's evidence." Well, if that is right, the answer is that the reporter knows what he is expected to do; and what he is expected to do is to report
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 - DEFENDANT Then he is referred to his witness statement: "(Q) 'This article, which appeared on page 5 under that headline, was filed by a PST correspondent called Kimambo.' Do you remember that, or you have seen that on the story when you looked at it? Did you remember that it had been filed by Mr. Kimambo? (A) Now I come to think of it, yes. (Q) You did remember? (A) I come to think of it, yes. (Q) You say: 'The story was handled in an ordinary manner...." Do you remember all that? (A) Now I do. (Q) What, in the last 30 seconds you have remembered? (A) Lapse of memory. (Q) But in 30 seconds you have just remembered it again? (A) I remember now. (Q) Okay. You remember that meeting? (A) Yes I do. (Q) Who was there? (A) I was there, the deputy managing editor was there, the news editor was there, business editor and features editor. (Q) What was discussed? (A) Well, we discussed" -- and he gives an account of
[Page 914]
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 916]
1 2 3 5
CLOSING - DEFENDANT matters that bathe the Chairman in the golden glow of praise and not to report anything that produces a different effect. There is quite a striking piece of Mr. Mauggo's evidence, where he was being asked about the Guardian story about the murderous assault on a Hai resident. This is on Day 3 at page 408, if your Lordship would be good enough to turn that up. At the beginning of page 408, Mr. Mauggo is being asked about paragraph 27A of his witness statement. This was the "murderous attack" story. "(Q) We had perhaps better look at it. It is in file 3.... Do you remember this story, Mr. Mauggo? (A) No, I don't remember this story. (Q) What? (A) I don't remember this story. (Q) At all? (A) At all. (Q) No memory of it? (A) No. (Q) You have no memory of how that came to be published? (A) No. By then I was content editor, and I believe I did attend the meeting which passed this one. (Q) You believe you did. But you do not remember the story? (A) No, I don't remember the story."
CLOSING - DEFENDANT the meeting. Well, I mean, this is evidence that really exposes the witnesses as just making it up. Benjamin was the claimant's brother.
4 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Mr. Mauggo told me that he had no idea that 6 MR. PRICE: Yes. 7 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: If that is true, then it explains just about 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
everything. not explain is his remembering meetings that he plainly cannot have any memory about. It makes it even less likely that he would have had any recollection of it. He is still speaking to a script, whether that bit of his evidence is true or not. We would say it is extremely unlikely to be true. But it does not make much difference; he is a witness who was speaking to a script. The other part of Mr. Mauggo's evidence -- this is at the top of page 10 of the written submissions now -- is his remarkable recollection in his witness statement of conversations that he had with Mr. Muchoki, who was the reporter who handled the story of the attack on the Hai resident. This is the very article of which he said he had no memory at all, in his oral evidence, but then he gives in his witness statement a very precise account of conversations with Mr. Muchoki. If your Lordship reads through the references
9 MR. PRICE: Well, it certainly explains something. What it does
[19] (Pages 913 to 916)

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 - DEFENDANT there, Day 3, pages 413 to 417, one can only describe the evidence as incoherent. At the end of page 413 he is asked about whether he remembers the conversation with Mr. Muchoki and, unsurprisingly, he says, "Not precisely." He says he had a rough idea of it. Then he is asked when it was, and says it was in 2007. Then: "(Q) When was the conversation -- before or after the story was published? (A) After" -- a very surprising answer. So, the story is published and then the checks are made to see whether Mr. Middleton has been contacted. So, then he is asked a lot of questions about that. If one reads through the next three pages, as I invite your Lordship to do in due course, one finds that it really was quite incoherent and ends up with the evidence, on page 417, that he spoke to Mr. Muchoki both before and after the story was published. This is not evidence on which any credibility at all can be placed in this court. The conclusion to this little bit is that one asks: why are the witnesses speaking to a party line? Well, the answer is: because the evidence of the stories themselves shows that this is a campaign to help Benjamin Mengi, and the witnesses are covering it up; and there is not any other rational explanation for the witnesses really making up their evidence. That is a good moment to pause, my Lord. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. Two o'clock.
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 - DEFENDANT he did not know Benjamin Mengi, it does not alter my submission and thesis that this was all a deliberate campaign to assist Benjamin Mengi. What it means is that Mr. Mauggo was doing what he was told and the person who would have told him what to do would be Mr. Mshana, the Managing Director. The witness, or the non-witness, the one who wrote the memo to Sakina Datoo, the reference to -- this is day 2, page 213, just for your Lordship's note, although you do not particularly need to turn it up. Your Lordship will remember Mr. Mshana's memo telling Sakina Datoo, "Publication of stories on the President. ... (reads to the words) .... this remains the company's official stand...." that they do not want any controversial stories about the President. A question to Mr. Mengi, on page 213 of day 2: "(Q) Where did the Managing Director get that idea from? (A) You ask him. It is not from me. (Q) Unfortunately, the Managing Director is not going to be a witness. I should very much like to ask him about his relationship with you...." Then, of course, as we learnt later on, he was in fact in court. So that, I think, deals with Mr. Luhanga and Mr. Mauggo and the only conclusion that can be drawn, we say, is that there is a cover-up going on here and if one reaches that conclusion, really the answer, the question answers itself.
[Page 918]
1 2
[Page 920]
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 - DEFENDANT (Adjourned for a short time)
CLOSING - DEFENDANT The other side of it is the story and it is a story, we say, that the claimant had nothing to do with these Guardian and Nipashe publications. That, really, the key to that aspect of it is the failure to respond to the Middletons letters to the Managing Editor and to Mr. Mengi himself. We say that, in itself, the non-response to such letters by both the Managing Editor and Mr. Mengi is disgraceful, inexplicable and unexplained. Any responsible newspaper would want to respond (and should respond ) to such a letter, even if only to avoid raised eyebrows or worse, if the matter came to a court case and that, presumably, is roughly similar in Tanzania to how it is here. Mr. Nguma's explanation (and I have given the reference at the top of page 11 of the written submission) was that to respond would give ammunition to the complainant, which we have no hesitation of describing as absurd. It is a non-answer . The claimant says that he feels bad that Mr. Nguma did not reply and, again, I have given the reference to that near the top of page 11. Mr. Nguma says that he advised the claimant not to reply which, of course, suggests that the decision was ultimately the claimant's, as of course it was. Therefore, it was Mr. Mengi who decided not to reply to these letters.
3 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes, Mr. Price? 4 MR. PRICE: Just reverting to something that your Lordship put to 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
me just before lunch about Mr. Mauggo's evidence that he did not know that Benjamin Mengi was Reginald Mengi's brother; if that is true, it does not alter the fact -- I have already made the submission -- that he was speaking to a script. It does not alter the fact that he cannot possibly remember and so forth. However, what it would do is to raise the question as to whether the defamatory articles concerning the Middletons were a put-up job to favour Benjamin Mengi. That would be the impact. The question that my learned friend would ask, "Well, how could it be a put-up job to favour Benjamin Mengi if he did not know that Benjamin Mengi was someone who needed to be favoured?" To which the answer is two-fold: one, it is a pretty unlikely scenario that he did not know that it was Benjamin Mengi. Maybe Mengi is quite a common name, I just do not know, but an experienced journalist would want to know why this series of very one-sided, very one-sided and apparently ill-researched articles, which seem to be favouring this man who is called Mengi, surprise surprise. The other aspect of it is this: suppose it is true that
[20] (Pages 917 to 920)

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 - DEFENDANT The inference, we say, from the Managing Editor's failure to reply to the letters to him is that he could not answer and he could not answer because he could not tell the truth and the truth was that there was no explanation for the falsity and the gross one-sidedness of these stories except that they were published under orders. The fact that there is a cover-up is amply demonstrated, we say, by Mr. Nguma's evidence, which he was constrained to admit was highly misleading. I will ask your Lordship to turn that up -- it is on day 3 at page 343 -- because it was so completely unequivocal an acceptance, not hedged about with any conditionality at all. Page 343, line 7: "(Q) You did not give them legal advice, did you?" This is the Managing Director and the Managing Editor of the Guardian. "(Q) You did not give them legal advice, did you? (A) No. (Q) What you say there is highly misleading, is it not? (A) Yes." That, really, opens -- the key is the key in the lock to Mr. Nguma's evidence. I went on to ask about, in line with this routine, which is a quote from his witness statement, which is designed, the submission was it was designed to give the court the impression that this was simply a routine matter. It is deliberately misleading, we say. Well, as your Lordship will recall and, indeed, in his
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 - DEFENDANT was. It does not make any sense. If legal advice was required (and Mr. Nguma's evidence was that the claimant felt that he did require legal advice on the matter) then Mr. Nguma was conflicted from advising either of them. It does not make any sense that he is conflicted on one and not the other. Mr. Nguma's evidence on whether the claimant did or did not require legal advice is incoherent. Reference to that is page 348 -- your Lordship can look at it -- and we say it is a fair description, but he says quite clearly in his witness statement that he did give legal advice and, in the end, he confirmed that in his oral evidence. However, the important point is that Mr. Nguma was clearly duty bound as a lawyer (and, indeed, as a lieutenant of an old friend of Mr. Mengi), when he was asked for advice on the letters, he was duty-bound to tell him that he was acting for his brother in the dispute with the Middletons and, again, there is a completely unequivocal acceptance of that. It is page 349, day 3, and I will ask your Lordship to turn that up. It is page 349, line 9: "(Q) You told my Lord a moment ago that Mr. Reginald Mengi felt he needed legal advice? (A) Yes. (Q) In that situation, it was your plain duty to tell him, 'I cannot give you legal advice because I am acting
[Page 922]
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 924]
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 - DEFENDANT evidence-in-chief his evidence was that he was conflicted. That was absolutely inevitable; he plainly was. Therefore, the question is why should this very senior lawyer give highly misleading evidence? The answer is that he is covering up. What he is covering up, in this instance, is that the decision not to reply to the letters was related to the fact that Mr. Nguma was acting for Benjamin Mengi, which he was anxious not to mention in his witness statement. It is a remarkable omission from his witness statement that he did not say that at all. However Mr. Nguma's evidence becomes even more startling when one looks at what he had to say about the letters Mr. Middleton wrote to Mr. Mengi. We quote here in the paragraph 22 of the written submissions, this is what he said: "I considered the letter and gave legal advice to Reginald Mengi and the Managing Editor of the Guardian, privilege which is not waived." He said that twice; once at paragraph 23(b) and once at paragraph 23(c). Then there was the remarkable piece of evidence where he said he was conflicted so far as advising the Guardian was concerned, but he was not conflicted so far as giving legal advice to Mr. Mengi on precisely the same letters and I have given the reference to that. It runs over about three pages of transcript, but that is quite clearly what the effect of it
CLOSING - DEFENDANT for your brother against the Middletons', was it not? (A) Yes." Now that, again, is absolutely key to this witnesses evidence because the next question, "(Q) Did you do that? (A) No. (Q) Why not? (A) I just decided not to. (Q) Why? (A) As it was not at that stage important." That is totally untrue. "(Q) It was extremely important.... (A) I do not think so." Then at the bottom of page 350, "(Q)....There must be an explanation; please can we have it?" That is line 23 on page 350. "(A) There was not any real reason why not." Well, those two bits of evidence that I have asked your Lordship to look up show what was going on and what was going on is a cover-up and it is a cover-up to which Mr. Reginald Mengi is plainly a party because Mr. Reginald Mengi said in evidence (and I have given the reference, day 1, page 17) that he did not know that Mr. Nguma was acting for his brother in the Silverdale dispute and he says he first learnt this when he read the witness statements in this case. We unhesitatingly say that your Lordship should reject that evidence. It is not conceivable that Mr. Nguma concealed from him the fact that he was acting for his own brother in the Silverdale dispute. He is his old friend of 32 years, he is his Chief Corporate Counsel, he is the Chairman of the
[21] (Pages 921 to 924)

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 - DEFENDANT Guardian and his office is just the other side of a conference room from the claimant's office. The claimant says that he was mislead by Mr. Nguma in this regard and I have given the reference to that. He claims to have challenged Mr. Nguma to tell him and that Mr. Nguma's response was, "He said he did not see why he should tell me because it was the firm and not him" and I have given the reference to that. If Mr. Nguma did say that, he was plainly lying because the signature on the defamation action, Benjamin Mengi's defamation against the Middletons, is Mr. Nguma's own signature, as he accepted. Perhaps the most striking fact in the whole trial (and certainly the most galling, from the point of view of the Middletons) is that Mr. Middleton's two letters to the claimant pleading for redress for the campaign of defamation in the Guardian and Nipashe, where did they end up? Filed by Benjamin Mengi's counsel in the file he maintained for Benjamin Mengi, under the name "Silverdale/Middleton". Again, your Lordship sees the reference to that, day 2, page 316-317. Your Lordship will remember that in May, when eventually the February letter of Ms. Hermitage found its way from the Guardian to IPP -- it is a letter written at the end of February and it did not find its way to IPP until May and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
CLOSING - DEFENDANT and that is the answer to it. If your Lordship accepts those submissions, the whole case falls into place. The next section is one I can cover quite quickly. It is the claimant's blanket denial that he ever intervenes at all in editorial matters and his extraordinary and counter-factual insistence that, "My activities are not given preferential treatment by the Guardian Ltd's publications."
9 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. 10 MR. PRICE: That will not work. As your Lordship recalls, there 11 12 13 14 16 18
are 190 articles on the website. The only one before 2009 is the one headed "Mengi named among continent's greatest entrepreneurs". I started going through some of the articles ---need to read them out. delighted to hear.
15 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: This is a convenient catalogue, but there is no 17 MR. PRICE: I was not proposing to, your Lordship will be 19 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. 20 MR. PRICE: However, there it is. One can see that is the sort of 21 22 23 24 25
stuff. There is really one explanation for that; these newspapers are treated as a sort of applause sheet for Mr. Reginald Mengi. Then your Lordship will recall the quote in the Guardian, "Media work is my hobby and I am now using the media
[Page 926]
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 928]
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 - DEFENDANT at that point your Lordship will recall that Mr. Nguma's secretary wrote at the top left-hand corner, "There is an existing file, Silverdale/Middleton. Shall I file it in that?" and the translation was given by Mr. Nguma in evidence, to which the answer was "Open a new file" so the earlier letters, earlier in point of being received by IPP when, as Mr. Nguma accepted when he wrote "case file" on them, he meant file them in Benjamin Mengi's file. Now, that just shows you what was going on in this office. It is all to do with Benjamin Mengi. The idea that Mr. Nguma concealed this from Reginald Mengi and misled him is a lot of nonsense. All that nonsense and lies is a cover-up. What is it covering up? That the claimant knew full well that his old friend and his Chief Corporate Counsel was acting for his brother and that they decided not to reply to Ms. Middleton's letters because there was a campaign going on in the Guardian and Nipashe to help Benjamin Mengi and they fully intended to go on doing that and they had no intention of trying to think up a response to the Middletons. One point that your Lordship may like to notice, if it is right, as we say it is, that the claimant and his counsel, Mr. Nguma, were working hand-in-hand with Benjamin Mengi, on that hypothesis, Mr. Nguma was right; he was not conflicted because in that case there would be an identity of interest
CLOSING - DEFENDANT to thank people" and the claimant's evidence that that was a misquote, although your Lordship asked him how he could remember that. At paragraph 28, your Lordship gets a bit of an angle into the truth; not fully because we just do not have the witnesses who know the truth and are willing to depart from the party line, but we get quite a lot shone on the truth by Mr. Kabendera, who deserves, we respectfully submit, plaudits as a witness of unusual integrity in the circumstances, given his concerns about the possible effect on his career of giving evidence against the claimant. The hearsay evidence of Sakina Datoo, again, shines a little light. She says she resigned because Mr. Mengi was fed up with her not putting stuff on the front page that he wanted her to put in. She has been unwilling to give evidence and your Lordship will make what you can of that, but there is a hearsay notice for her evidence and we say she is a person of integrity and no reason to disbelieve her. Thirdly, the history, which is a remarkable one, of the ITV broadcast of all 11 minutes of Mr. Mengi's press conference and, impressive as the lady was, Ms. Mhaville, she was a pretty good witness in the sense that she at least made sense, but she too was adhering to a party line, we say. Mr. Mengi, as the proprietor of ITV, got an advance that no
[22] (Pages 925 to 928)

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 - DEFENDANT one else would have got. At paragraph 29, we say that if your Lordship finds himself in the position that the hall of mirrors of which the evidence that has been presented really ends up as being, makes it difficult for your Lordship to reach any firm conclusions on the submissions I have made so far, your Lordship can reach the a conclusion that is good enough by a more direct route. The claimant knew undeniably, as it was drawn to his attention at the meeting with Mr. Pocock and it was drawn to his attention again, twice, by Mr. Middleton in his letters, he knew perfectly well that there was a highly derogatory campaign going on in his newspapers which were alleged to be absolutely false and they were drawn to his attention and he chose to do noting at all; not even to reply to the letters. The notion that this is all a great high matter of principle and all to do with a great principle of editorial independence really does not make any sense at all. What he was being asked to do was not interfere with editorial independence at all, but to take steps, as the proprietor, to ensure that journalistic ethics were being followed, particularly in a matter in which there was a strong appearance of bias in favour of his own brother. There is no known principle of editorial independence or
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 - DEFENDANT about these matters, but why should they not? There is absolutely nothing to support an allegation of conspiracy to conduct a smear campaign in them, but the interesting thing about them is that they were sent by Mr. Manji to his lawyer for use in a lawsuit. If I could just ask your Lordship to turn up the two pages which I may not have pointed up in cross-examination, but 5.28 at (E). The exhibit RM5 starts at page 339. Your Lordship will remember what the main body of this is; this is the first of them. It is an e-mail from Ms. Hermitage to Mr. Manji and one sees from the top of the page that Mr. Manji has forwarded it to Mr. Kawango, his lawyer. One sees from the very top of the page, "Saba Kawango", that means it has been printed off MR. Kawango's computer. However, the pages I wanted your Lordship just to note, if you go forward to page 350, you will see this is a short e-mail from Ms. Hermitage to Mr. Manji. Then the top bit is it is forwarded by Mr. Manji to Mr. Kawango and this is what he says: "Please file in Mengi case file." Does your Lordship see that? MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. MR. PRICE: That is an instruction from Mr. Manji to his lawyer, to file it in the Mengi case file; that being the case file in one of the other many lawsuits that have taken place between
[Page 930]
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 932]
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 - DEFENDANT proprietorial hands off which would prevent a newspaper proprietor intervening to rectify that situation and it just does not make any sense. Therefore, we say quite simply that the words complained of are justified to the hilt and, if that is right, we do not need the defence of honest comment, but if needed it is a good defence for the words which we identify in the skeleton argument, which are comment and, in particular, the allegation of lying. Then there is a section in the closing submissions on points which go to Mr. Mengi's credibility. We have dealt with quite a lot of that already; some are summarised in paragraph 28. Mengi and Manji is a good line into that. A very serious accusation against the Middletons and Mr. Manji of being paid a lot of money to engage in a dirty campaign, a smear campaign. As your Lordship will recall, in the action against Mr. Manji, the allocation of a conspiracy was supported by exhibiting the emails exchanged between Mr. Manji and Ms. Hermitage. Your Lordship will recall, possibly, cross-examination on that. If one exams those e-mails, there is nothing in them at all that sensibly supports a conspiracy. It is quite clear that Mr. Manji and Ms. Hermitage were talking to each other
CLOSING - DEFENDANT Mr. Mengi and Mr. Manji. It is quite clear that these are sent to Mr. Kawango in his capacity as Mr. Manji's lawyer. Then if your Lordship goes to page 351, it is very similar because Mr. Manji forwards it to Mr. Kawango with the instruction, "Print and file as documents in Mengi case" with notation that "ICC...." International Chamber of Commerce, "...pulled out of Tanzania because Mengi somehow screwed them." Your Lordship sees, there are no two ways about it, these are communications sent by Mr. Manji to his lawyer and he has him told to file them in the file that Mr. Manji's lawyer maintained on disputes with Mr. Mengi. Now, how did these documents then end up in Mr. Mengi's hands, so that they could be exhibited to the plaint? There are two possibilities (and only two possibilities): either they were stolen from Mr. Kawango or, which is considerably more likely because Mr. Kawango and Mr. Manji fell out, Mr. Kawango handed them over to Mr. Mengi or his lawyer in the gravest imaginable breach of legal professional privilege. Again, the claimant washed his hands of all this and said, "Oh, well this is all to do with my lawyers." I have given your Lordship a reference to that in the evidence at the bottom of page 17. However, an honest witness would have been quite appalled.
[23] (Pages 929 to 932)

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 - DEFENDANT Then at 31, on page 18, one sees how this all impacts on Mr. Mengi's credibility. Apart from the grubby way in which the evidence was obtained, this was clearly the best possible evidence of malice against Ms. Hermitage, if true. Paid 55,000 by an old enemy of Mr. Mengi's for smearing his reputation; game, set and match, malice. Your Lordship has seen that Mr. Ngolo, who was the claimant's lawyer acting in the Manji action, posted the press release in which he said that the evidence of that was irrefutable and the claimant himself posted a press release on the same day. So the question is why the evidence was not pleaded. I might just ask your Lordship to turn up the evidence on that. It is day 1, page 154 (Pause) It starts on line 4 at page 154. Does your Lordship have that? MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. MR. PRICE: Line 4: "(Q) The question I am asking is why, since this, if true -- and if it is irrefutable evidence, it is true -- since it is the best possible evidence of malice, why was it not used in this lawsuit? (A) In deciding whether there was malice or not, my Lord, in my opinion, it would not depend on just one item. There are other items which would try to show that there was malice." Then your Lordship asked the witness to answer 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 - DEFENDANT (Q) Is it true or false? (A) It is false. (Q) Well, what was the reason? (A) I say advice from my lawyer." Line 13: (A) ...I did what I was advised to do. (Q) Well, I have asked you the question three or four times now. I have given you every opportunity to answer it, and you have not answered it, Mr. Mengi. (A) There is no better answer than I have given you." So we were clearly in an area where we were near legal professional privilege, but the question, "Why did you do something? Decide to take a particular step or not to take a particular step in litigation" is a question that may reflect legal advice, but it is a question which the witness must answer because it does not, in itself, trespass at all. It is his reason, however he arrived at it. He may or may not have arrived at it as a result of legal advice, but answer came none. We submit that there is not any other explanation. The evidence looks hopeless and it is hopeless and he knew it would not bear examination in a court of law. Then when one follows that through, the press releases, which very clearly allege that Ms. Hermitage was paid $50,000 for conducting this smear campaign, are very defamatory of the Middletons and the claimant knows that his evidence will bear examination and yet he declines to take them down.
[Page 934]
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 936]
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 - DEFENDANT question and the question was put again, at line 16: "(A) My Lord, whatever was put in was done in consultation with my lawyers. (Q) So, are you saying it was done on legal advice? (A) Yes. (Q) Well, what I am suggesting to you is that the reason it was done -- I am not asking you to say anything about the legal advice that you received -- but the reason why you did not put it forward is because you knew it would not stand up for examination in court." (A) My Lord, the reason I withdrew the case is because I was worried about parallel proceedings...." which, of course, was a different question. Then the question is put again: "(Q) ... There is no reason at all, if you have evidence of malice against Ms. Hermitage, why you should not put it forward in England.... Why did you not put it forward? (A) I said under the advice of my lawyer. (Q) And I say -- I am not asking you what the advice was -- that the reason you decided not to put it forward is because it would not bear examination in a court of law. (A) It is not true. "(Q) Well, you tell us what your reason for making the decision was then, Mr. Mengi? (A) I made a decision on the advice of my lawyer. (A) I am not asking for what advice you were given, but what I am asking you is why you decided not to use it in this lawsuit? (A) I say advice from my lawyer." Then I made the suggestion again: (A) That is your opinion.
CLOSING - DEFENDANT If one goes back to day 1 at page 161, that is clear enough. Top of page 161: "(Q) If they are still up on the internet, it is only right that you should take them down, is it not, Mr. Mengi? (A) Why? (Q) Because they are highly defamatory of Ms. Hermitage and because you have discontinued the action." (A) I say this over and over again, that I have nothing to do with the news within my media. That is a job, it will be, the editors will decide take it down or leave it. (Q) I beg your pardon, this is your press release. The 19th November postings that we have just looked at is yours, nothing to do with your editor. It is yours and your lawyer. (A) What is the difficulty about it? (Q) It accuses Ms. Hermitage of accepting money from Mr. Manji for conducting a smear campaign against you. (A) I said something is defamatory if it is not true. If it is true, it is not defamatory. (Q) When you have checked then, and if it is still there, are you going leave it there? (A) No, I am sorry, I thought there was some other news in general, but if it is just a specific one, the answer is no. (Q) No what? (A) It is not going to come down." So there it is; he is not going to take it down. In those circumstances, really, this lawsuit, at huge expense, huge pressure on the Middletons to get them to take down the relatively mild things they have said about Mr. Mengi on the
[24] (Pages 933 to 936)

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 - DEFENDANT Silverdale Farm website, really words fail one when one looks at the disparity between the conduct of Mr. Mengi and that which is complained of against Ms. Hermitage. However, as your Lordship has seen, on 4th September of this year, the claimant discontinued the action against Mr. Manji and paid all his costs and that is in the file. I have not actually given the reference to that, but I think it is on the last page of file 5.2. The claimed reason in evidence for discontinuing the action and paying all of Mr. Manji's costs is that he wished to avoid parallel proceedings in Tanzania which might affect these proceedings. Well, that does not bear examination because Mr. Eardley's advice was, as your Lordship will recall, that the Manji action would not adversely affect this action, except possibly in reducing the quantum of damages and then only if damages for injury to reputation from allegations the subject of this action were claimed and awarded in Tanzania. Now, if that was the situation and Mr. Mengi had gone away from the lawsuit in Tanzania with a big wodge of damages for injury to his reputation from the very publications that are sued on here, then section 12 of the Defamation Act 1952 would have come into effect. Section 12 of the Defamation Act 1952 says that damages awarded in another action should be
CLOSING - DEFENDANT 2 MR. PRICE: Yes, I very much doubt if we will need to, my Lord, 3 because I do not think anything changed. So, you know, the
1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
submissions are there. So forward to page 22, the claimant's attempt to act as a neutral mediator. Even that, we say, sheds some light on Mr. Mengi's credibility as a witness because before a meeting with the High Commissioner, the claimant claims to have had really very little knowledge indeed about the Silverdale Farm dispute, but the one thing that he did know (and could not possibly have forgotten) is that less than two weeks before, what he had read in his own newspaper. His witness statement says that he read it and it is less than two weeks before the Pocock meeting and it says Mr. Middleton and Mr. Ngoya were accused, evidently on the complaint -- something funny has happened there. Oh,no, it has not in your Lordship's version, this has been corrected for typos by my learned junior. So Mr. Middleton and Mr. Ngoya are reported in Nipashe as having been accused of forging the contract by which Mr. Middleton acquired the Silverdale Farm while being fully aware that it did not belong to them; that is Mr. Middleton and Mr. Ngoya. That, whichever way one looks at it, makes a complete nonsense of the claimant's supposed attempts to act as a
[Page 938]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25
[Page 940]
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 - DEFENDANT taken into account. Of course, if damages were awarded in this action first, the effect would be the other way round, if there is a section 12 in Tanzania. This cannot have been the reason for discounting the action against Mr. Manji because very shortly after the action was discontinued, only about a month later, the claimant's counsel disavowed any intention of claiming substantial damages in this action. Therefore, it cannot have been in order to preserve the quantum of damages in this action and there is the quote from Mr. Eardley's e-mail. The conclusion is that the claimant discontinued the action against Mr. Manji for one or both of two reasons: one, he knew his evidence would not bear examination and two, he was being pressed by my instructing solicitors for disclosure of documents relating to the Manji action which he did not want to disclose. The whole episode shows that the claimant is not a witness upon whom reliance can be placed. The next whole section I can skip because it is there for the record, but your Lordship heard it all this morning. Therefore, we can go forward to page 22. so, a supplementary, when we all get the transcript of this morning's evidence, before Mr. Rampton speaks, of course you can.
22 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: If you and Mr. Barnes want to put in a page or
CLOSING - DEFENDANT neutral mediator because if the farm just simply belonged to Mr. Benjamin Mengi and Mr. Middleton was forging a contract, there was nothing to mediate or the alternative, which is certainly the right alternative, as we submit, is that he knew perfectly well that his brother had trumped up the charge and, therefore, that the Nipashe and Guardian reports were grossly unfair to both Mr. Middleton and Mr. Ngoya if not corrected, which, of course, nothing was done to do. Indeed, it went on being repeated for months afterwards. He does not appear to have bothered to ask his brother about this and if he had had any genuine desire to see justice done, as he claimed in his letter to Mr. Pocock, he would have taken his brother to task and seen to it that the legal case was withdrawn and that his brother allowed Mr. Middleton to register his land. So that is the end of a lengthy section on justification and credibility of the claimant's evidence. We say that we do not need to go any further. There is a complete defence and that is it. However, if necessary, we go into privilege and that one finds in the skeleton argument. We also draw your Lordship's attention to some passages in Ms. Hermitage's evidence. I have given the references there at paragraph 45. Those are passages in which, as your Lordship will remember, Ms. Hermitage was explaining why it was that she
[25] (Pages 937 to 940)

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 - DEFENDANT felt it necessary to draw the attention of people in this country and, indeed, elsewhere to what had happened to them. So those are pretty good explanations of what Ms. Hermitage wanted to achieve and, we say, entirely consistent with privilege on a common corresponding interest basis. However, if one goes to the skeleton argument on qualified privilege, which starts on page 35 of the skeleton argument, we there, 66 and 67, refer again to the problems that the Middletons had had in Tanzania -- I need not go over that again -- and the attempts that they had made in Tanzania and through politicians to try and sort it out. At 68 (and we respectfully submit this is an important submission), in those circumstances, the basic human right of freedom of expression under Article 10 comes into play because in a democratic society, we say, Ms. Hermitage should be free, honestly, to publicise their plight to persons with an interest in the Silverdale Farm case and to campaign for justice and so on and so forth; implications for investors, British government's policy of giving hundreds of millions of pounds of aid and response to attack. So this is a two-pronged privilege. It is an interest that Ms. Middleton had to communicate this information to interested persons and a corresponding interest in them to receive it and that, in itself, is enough to give rise to
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
CLOSING - DEFENDANT which of course is how most people do obtain them. So quite why, in those circumstances, the Middleton's should not respond in their own website it is very difficult for us to understand. Apart from that, the famous November 2010 press releases, which were highly defamatory, the accepting $50,000 accepting a lot of money to being paid by Mr. Manji to smear Mr. Mengi. That was put up on around 19th November 2010 and it is still there. So in English law, Article 10 is most clearly expressed in the privileged defence, the two-pronged privilege defence. One point -- this is paragraph 70 of the skeleton argument -as Mr. Justice Eady says in Hewitt v Grunwald, which I will come to in a moment, the onus is on the claimant to demonstrate that persons outside the scope of the common and corresponding interests have accessed and read the parts of the website complained of. The quotation is actually in
paragraph 27. 20 MR. RAMPTON: I think you better look at the text of the case. 21 MR. PRICE: We will look at the text of the case and I am sure if
22 23 24 25
I do not, my learned friend will. Yes, Mr. Justice Eady said in Hewitt v Grunwald -- this is paragraph 27 of the skeleton argument: "The burden rests upon each of the claimants to demonstrate that some person or
[Page 942]
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 944]
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 - DEFENDANT privilege. The second limb of it is that they were responding to an attack in the IPP Media, which is a powerful form of privilege. The suggestion from my learned friend is, "Oh, well you hung about for years before you started responding" but the fact is that, first of all, Ms. Middleton clearly felt, as she told your Lordship in evidence, that there was still a need to respond even at the time that she put up the website, in May 2009. She had not really been in a position to do so until then because they were living rather from pillar to post and Mr. Middleton was having a breakdown. However, the plain fact is that the IPP Media articles -- not all the IPP Media articles, but I think seven of them -- were still up on the IPP Media website until September 2010. We did not know this when we were drafting. We knew that they were up at the beginning of 2010, but we did not know that they were there until September 2010. That your Lordship gets from the -- I am just trying to remember the name of the expert. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Mr. Lema, 10(A). MR. PRICE: Mr. Lema, yes. Not all of the articles on the evidence went on to the website, but those of them that did stayed up on the old website, but obtainable by a search,
CLOSING - DEFENDANT persons and, in particular, persons outside the scope of the common and corresponding interest have read the words complained of" and he is referring to the claimant. The cases are Vassiliev v Cass and Hewitt and Grunwald. Perhaps I can start with Vassiliev, if I can find it? As always, my own copies of these things which are fairly extensively marked. Your Lordship finds it at tab 15 of the authorities file. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: I have it. MR. PRICE: Your Lordship sees that the claimant was a former officers of the KGB who was a writer and he was the co-author of a book about solid espionage based on research in KGB archives. In the book, the claimant alleged that the KGB archives confirmed that Alger Hiss was a traitor. The defendant, Frank Cass and Co Ltd, was the publisher of a specialist journal on historical and contemporary intelligence issues, with about 146 subscribers in the UK. In the Autumn of 2000, the defendant published a period (inaudible) article by a long-term friend and supporter of his Hiss which questioned the reliability of the new evidence put forward by some commentators and alleged that the KGB documents did not support the contention that his was a Soviet agent. The article had also been published by two university websites.
[26] (Pages 941 to 944)

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 - DEFENDANT The contention at trial was qualified privilege on three bases: common interest, reply to attack and (inaudible). Held ruling that the article was published on occasion of qualified privilege. The defendant's journal was a specialist publication with a specialist readership. As for the publication on the websites, the article was likely in practice to have been read only by those with an interest in the subject of intelligence or the Alger history. Publication was protected by common interest privilege. 2) It was also protected as a reply to an attack. The claimant's book had alleged that Hiss did betray his country. "L", a friend of Hiss, had taken up that gauntlet and his article and it was a relevant and proportionate reply. In the judgment, paragraph 2, your Lordship sees the second sentence: "Readers of the journal have a specialist interest, perhaps professional, academic, and historical in the contemporary intelligence issues." Paragraph 8: "The common interest argument was based on the fact that the journal was a specialist publication with a specialist readership that cannot be published in the retail outlets," and so forth. At the bottom of the page there is the websites, effectively, university websites: "Devoted to matters of general interest in the context of intelligence ....(reads 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 - DEFENDANT That is not identical on its facts to this case but what it shows is that my learned friend's submission at the beginning of the case was that you really only get a common interest privilege where there is some defined class to whom a defamatory publication is addressed, but that is just not right. The class has got to be it is a common and corresponding interest. The publisher has an interest of his own to protect or to pursue by making the publication and the class has to be of those people with the corresponding interest in it. The only thing that brought together the "publishees" of this specialist journal and of such people who went to the university website was that they were interested in the subject. It shows you, therefore, quite clearly how the common corresponding interest works. As it happens in this case there was the response to attack aspect as well. If one looks at the present case, particularly the Silverdale website, we do not know how many people went to the website and actually now that I recall that was something that I should have taken your Lordship to this morning. We might just look at it quickly now. We do not really know how many people did go to the website. Your Lordship finds this, I think it is a good moment to look at it, if your Lordship would be good enough to go back to paragraph 37 of the skeleton argument, this is the evidence
[Page 946]
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 948]
1 CLOSING - DEFENDANT 2 such as it is on the number of visits to the website. The 3 defendant had given evidence, such as was available to her, 4 about the number of visits to the pages. She had been able to 5 obtain information about visits to only one of the articles, 6 this is at the time of her witness statement. It would appear 7 there were 462 page views over a two-and-a-half year period. 8 That is a worldwide figure. There are not separate figures 9 for the UK and Tanzania. 10 From the figures for visitors the largest number was 11 from the United States. The defendant's evidence, this is 12 from paragraph 36 of her witness statement, is that many of 13 the visits are generated by search engines automatically 14 visiting. There is further information and that shows page 15 views of the postings worldwide. 16 I just ask your Lordship to look at file 1.2, tab B, 17 page 151. We have not paid much attention to that. This is 18 the most up-to-date that anybody has been able to find. Does 19 your Lordship have that? 20 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. 21 MR. PRICE: This is some IT specialist who has been able to 22 somehow get at the visits to the various posts on the 23 Silverdale case. There is a list of each individual on the 24 website, as to how many visits they have generated. If your 25 Lordship goes forward to page 154, the third or fourth one up
CLOSING - DEFENDANT the words).... the words are unlikely to have been read by any casual surfer in reality. There is no evidence but it is unlikely to have been read only by those with an interest in the subject of intelligence generally or the Alger Hiss story." Then the learned judge quotes some paragraphs from Gatley, particularly the paragraphs on response to attack. Then at paragraph 13, he says, as submitted by counsel for the defendant: "It is important to bear in mind the relationship of friendship which exists between Mr. Lowenthal [he was the author of the words complained of] and Mr. Hiss and Mr. Hiss went to his grave protesting his innocence. Mr. Lowenthal, an historian has a longstanding interest in the subject matter of the Hiss saga." Then jumping to paragraph 15: "Mr. Lowenthal therefore effectively took up the gauntlet ....(reads to the words).... try and answer the charges which had been laid against Mr. Hiss." Then the submission of the claimant are considered and at paragraph 20 the judge concludes: "In my judgment, this is a clear case of privilege under both the first and the second categories, i.e. under common interest and also under the category of reply to an attack." Reynolds privilege he did not have to decide.
[27] (Pages 945 to 948)

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 - DEFENDANT is, "IPP Media accuses British investor of serious crim." Your Lordship sees that? MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. MR. PRICE: That is number 6 in the annex to the particulars of claim. Your Lordship sees 69 visits and 11.03.2010, that is the date on which it was posted. That is number 6. If your Lordship goes over the page, the fifth one down, "(unclear) commitment to agriculture investment". Does your Lordship see that? MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. MR. PRICE: That is number five in the particulars of claim. Your Lordships sees the rather curious figure of five visits to that. Then there is the date on which it was visited. That is five visits in the best part of three years. If your Lordship goes to about 10 up from the bottom of that page, there is one called "Reginald Mengi IPP Media corrupt and libelous journalism." Does your Lordship have that? MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. MR. PRICE: That is number 3 in the particulars of claim. That was posted in December 2009 and it had 15 visitors. Over the page, page 156, the second one, "Reginald Mengi IPP Media openly supports corruption". Does your Lordship see that, the second one on page 156.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
CLOSING - DEFENDANT has an interest in security, otherwise why spend money on a magazine, but are you saying that anybody who visits the Silverdale Farm website must by definition be someone with an interest in the proper spending of the international development budget and corruption in public life in Africa, and so forth, and therefore the defence must apply? Is that not rather circular? Why does it depend on the number of visits? one looks at these, the number of visits is pretty small and the 651 visits one, which is a worldwide figure, appears to be well out of lien and the five visits must be wrong because there must have been more than five visits by lawyers and other people involved in the case. The answer has to be in Vassiliev, at paragraph 10, where the learned judge says: "The question that arises is whether or not those who read or downloaded the material would be likely to fall in the same small circle of professional and academic specialists readers of the magazine, no evidence, but in the nature of things unlikely to have been read by a casual surfer, no evidence, but is likely in practice to have been read only by those with an interest in this broader subject of intelligence generally."
10 MR. PRICE: Maybe it does not but your Lordship sees that however
25 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: It was an online journal, was it?
[Page 950]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25
[Page 952]
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 - DEFENDANT MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. MR. PRICE: That is number 2 in the particulars of claim. That shows 651 visitors. The sixth one on that page, "Reginald Mengi look into his mirror", that is number one on the appendix to the particulars of claim. That shows 17 visits. Our submission on that, I am now at paragraph 38, page 23 of our skeleton argument, there the numbers are set out, the figures merely underline the fact, we say that "no conclusions at all can be drawn from the statistics, in the absence of any attempt by the Claimant to establish, with the help of expert evidence how many people in this jurisdiction and Tanzania visited the web postings...." Quite commonly, one has such expert evidence in these cases. I emphasise that those are worldwide figures and such evidence as one has, which is probably included in this section of the -- yes, if your Lordship goes to 146 in file 1.2, your Lordship sees the total visits to the whole website, I think. This breaks down the page views by countries. This is for the total visits to the whole website, US generated over 3,000, United Kingdom 2,500, and Tanzania 1,650. interest privilege defence found in Vassiliev to a case about posting on the internet? It is easy to see that each of the 146 subscribers to the magazine on which Mr. Vassiliev sued
22 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: How does one apply the common corresponding
CLOSING - DEFENDANT MR. PRICE: Yes, because if you look at paragraph 9: "Apart from the journal itself ....(reads to the words).... in particular the story of Mr. Alger Hiss." Where an internet publication is concerned, we are feeling our way but the court can only draw inferences about it. But in the end, if there is a problem, it is the claimant's problem because, as I pointed out (this is back to paragraph 27 of the skeleton argument) the onus is on the claimant to demonstrate the person or persons outside the scope of the common and corresponding interest have visited it. Publication is for the claimant to prove. What can one infer? If hundreds of thousands of people had visited Miss Hermitage's website, your Lordship might be saying to me, "Well, look, come on, I mean this is obviously a subject of general interest. How can you say that there is some special interest here to bring it within the privilege." Here, on any view, it is relatively minimal and in the nature of things, just as in Vassiliev, we say that the only people who are likely to go to it, it is a big resource, and then to find the bits about Mr. Reginald Mengi, who does not come up on the first page of the Google search, the Silverdale Farm website does not, are going to be people with a particular interest in this subject. If one asks why, it must be because they are interested in the experiences of investors for one
[28] (Pages 949 to 952)

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 - DEFENDANT reason or another, these investors in Tanzania, at the hands both of the courts, the police, the government, Mr. Benjamin Mengi, the media, and Mr. Reginald Mengi. We say that in the end I suppose our submission comes down to this, why should Miss Hermitage not exercise her right of freedom of expression to tell people, why should she not stand on a soapbox at Hyde Park Corner if necessary and tell people about this. In fact, she has chosen a medium which is in the nature of it is going to be channelled towards an interested audience but she is looking to provide information about her and her husband's appalling experiences, to people who may be interested in why the government goes on giving hundreds of millions of aid to Tanzania when they appear to know nothing about this, and to try and keep the thing alive so that in the end they may get justice. They have an arbitration pending, an international arbitration which may yield something from them, who knows. Why should they not shout it from the rooftops. It is them exercising their article 10 right. If one brings that back to English law terms, there is a common and corresponding interest. One interesting angle which one can think about here, this is in one of the paragraphs of our closing address, I just invite your Lordship to think about this. Suppose that a journalist on The Times,
CLOSING - DEFENDANT 2 MR. PRICE: Yes. 3 (Short adjournment) 4 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes.
1 5 MR. PRICE: Your Lordship sees from Hewitt v Grunwald it is a 6 defamatory publication on the website of the Board of Deputies 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
of British Jews and it is a serious libel because it accuses the Interpal of being a terrorist organisation and the claimants were the trustees of Interpal. At paragraph 10, your Lordship sees how serious it was, the very last line on the page, "the defendants intended to fairly and squarely to allege that the assistance which Interpal gives to terrorist organisations is given knowingly or consciously." At paragraph 17, the judge records: "It is only fair to say that as a matter of fact what was said was wholly untrue. They had not given any money to Hamas or any other terrorist organisation but that is not the point, privilege covers publications which are untrue, indeed it is not needed if they are true." Privilege is dealt with, as your Lordship will have seen, starting at paragraph 69, which is the common and corresponding interest privilege that is at issue. At paragraph 70, the judge says: "It seems to me to be faintly unreal to suggest that there could not be" this was a striking out application so the learned judge is not actually
[Page 954]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25
[Page 956]
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 - DEFENDANT say, or The Guardian, had interviewed Mr. Middleton and Miss Hermitage and having given Mr. Reginald Mengi an opportunity to give his side of the story, had published this. Mr. Mengi would no doubt say it is very unfair and you have gone much too far in this, that or the other respect. But it is very difficult to see why the journalist could not claim Reynolds privilege. There is plainly a considerable public interest in play here and the journalist would appear to have followed all the Reynolds lines. He would have done his proper verification and he would have given Mr. Mengi an opportunity to reply. Now, Mr. Mengi cannot say that he has not had a proper opportunity to put his side of the case because his newspapers were written to twice and he was written to twice, and they chose not to reply. Now, if the journalist would have a Reynolds privilege for publishing this, then a fortiori the victims, Mr. Middleton and Miss Hermitage, would have a considerable greater interest and their privilege is expressed in terms of common and corresponding interest. That is quite apart from the response to attack privilege which carries the day, we say, on any view. We ought to look at Hewitt v Grunwald. will Hewitt v Grunwald and have a look at it meantime.
24 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Shall we break off there until 20 past 3 and I
CLOSING - DEFENDANT deciding the point, "a legitimate interest on the part of Jews and the subject of Hamas terrorist activities and in steps taken to reduce the flow of funds." At paragraph 72, attention was focused on the issue whether communication with the offending material by way of the worldwide web is reasonable and proportionate, "so wide as to be capable of undermining the defence of privilege." Then jumping a few pages, Mr. Rampton as usual got it right, at any right when he is on the right side he gets it right, "notwithstanding this Mr. Rampton submits that a court cannot simply rule out a defence of conventional privilege automatically because the publication in question appeared on the internet ....(reads to the words).... mode of publication was reasonable and proportionate having regard to the interests sought to be protected." I think that seems to have been what has got into the books, possibly because Mr. Rampton writes one of them: "My attention was drawn to Gatley and Vassiliev. I am quite satisfied at this stage ....(reads to the words).... read the words complained of and construed them as referring to the claimant." MR. RAMPTON: Would you finish the sentence, please? MR. PRICE: "I did not find the analogy ....(reads to the words).... is not easy to arrive at a solution."
[29] (Pages 953 to 956)

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 - DEFENDANT Again, in that case the common and corresponding interest was found not in the fact that there was a defined class, namely, Jews, the defined class of Jews includes not only an entire nation but an entire religion. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: The British Jews, it says so. MR. PRICE: It was on the worldwide web and the common and corresponding interest arose from the fact that the information that had been put on to the Board of Deputies web about terrorists acts in general and terrorists acts against Jews in particular, was of interest to be communicated to recipients and they had a corresponding interest to receive it. That fits perfectly well, we submit, into the present situation. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: The website, I presume, was accessible to anyone. You did not have to type in a password to show that you were Jewish. MR. PRICE: No, that is right, my Lord. Again, as in Vassiliev, the reasonable inference is that most people who access it would be Jews and just as in the present case it is a reasonable inference that most or all people who access the Silverdale Farm website were people who had a particular interest in the story for one reason or another. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: It is another way of putting the class of people who would be likely to have visited a website in Hewitt
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 - DEFENDANT say what has that got to do with the privilege, but in this instance Mr. Mengi cannot get away from the fact that he owns these newspapers and he has been given the opportunity to say what he will about the defamatory campaign that the Middletons complained about, and he chose not to. That is enough. From thereafter the privilege exists and if it is true or false that the claimant has anything to do with his IPP Media or indeed whether he said anything at the Pocock meeting, that is neither here nor there. I suppose i ought to just take your Lordship on to the section on privilege in the emails. Your Lordship finds that at page 46 of the skeleton argument. The submission is really very similar here but it is a fortiori because here in the case of the two emails, the Lutheran Church and the AMI, the publication is focused much more than it is on the website, it is focused on the Lutheran Church on the one hand, and AMI on the other. If one looks at it, one sees the common and corresponding interest and indeed the wish to reply to the attack. As regards the Lutheran Church (this is at paragraph 89 of the skeleton argument) Mr. Mengi is quite a well known member of the Lutheran Church. He speaks of it in paragraph 162 to 165 of his witness statement and, as Miss Hermitage told you, the Lutheran Church is pretty significant in
[Page 958]
1 2 3 4 5
[Page 960]
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 - DEFENDANT v Grunwald, mainly members of the British Jewish community no doubt, but people who were interested in the argument about whether charities supporting Hamas or friendly to Hamas are acting legitimately or not.
6 MR. PRICE: Yes, precisely so. 7 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Did this ever go to trial? Presumably, not if 8 this was 2004 on a strike-out. 9 MR. PRICE: I do not know the answer to that. We have no further 10 judgment on the question of privilege, anyway. I would 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
respectfully caution your Lordship against any submission from my learned friend that we have to prove that the claimant is responsible for what appears on IPP Media before the privilege can arise. As I have already said, privilege only becomes necessary if the information that is communicated is false. One needs to be very cautious against making the truth of the information a test of whether the privilege existed.
18 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Are we on to reply to attack? 19 MR. PRICE: In relation to all categories of privilege because my 20 21 22 23 24 25
learned friend might say it is all very well to communicated material of interest to people about defamatory attacks on the Middletons in Tanzania but why bring Mr. Mengi into that because you have not proved that he was responsible for those attacks. This applies to really both aspects of it. Clearly, if something entirely extraneous were brought in, one would
CLOSING - DEFENDANT Tanzania. Then there is the IPP Media Guardian report of Bishop Shao of the Lutheran Church. I have given the reference there. The Bishop commended Mr. Mengi for taking courage to name suspects, and so on and so forth. There are other examples of that. Your Lordship might just like to make a note beside paragraph 89, this is file 5.2, tab C, page 55 and 98. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Which page? MR. PRICE: If your Lordship would like to make a note beside paragraph 89 of some further references in the cuttings to Mr. Mengi's activities in relation to the Lutheran Church. The references are file 5.2 tab C, page 55, where one finds a report of, "Build a better church, the speaker of the National Assembly urges the Lutheran Church," and this is a foundation stone ceremony. Then Mr. Mengi speaks at it. Another one at page 98, and another Lutheran Church one. It is Mr. Mengi addressing the Lutheran Church Diocese's Annual General Meeting. At the bottom of page 98, "IPP Executive Chairman who represented Lutheran Church Northern Diocese members living outside Kilimanjaro region also addressed the congregation." He does not conceal his allegiance and indeed his representative capacity. MR. RAMPTON: I do not think this was ever put to Mr. Mengi. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: I do not think it was in dispute. He is a
[30] (Pages 957 to 960)

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 - DEFENDANT prominent member of the Lutheran Church. MR. PRICE: File 3, tab B, page 132, shows another one. Perhaps it is the same one again. Perhaps I also did not put it to Mr. Mengi but I could have spent a lot of time putting stuff to Mr. Mengi. Yes, file 3, tab B, page 132, which is an article in Majira, "I am being persecuted for exposing corruption." Mr. Mengi said he was being persecuted, "and as he was speaking the congregation for the Lutheran Church Northern Diocese was listening attentively and some of them shed tears." Mr. Mengi is a prominent member of the church and it seems quite a suitable body to write and complain about alleged oppression by his newspapers. Benjamin Mengi, too, claims his position as a church elder. My learned friend makes something of this email going to a hospital and an aviation unit. This is scraping the barrel. Your Lordship will recall what Miss Hermitage said about that in evidence. It is scraping the barrel because there is absolutely no evidence that any consequences have flowed from those emails at all. Indeed, it is very unlikely that the hospital and the aviation business would have bothered to read them. We get hundreds of emails every day, and I am sure your Lordship experiences this as we all do, and we read the ones that need reading.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
CLOSING - DEFENDANT or something, people would think it rather surprising if we hung about for two or three years before suddenly responding and attacking the morals of The Times and so forth. People will think, what is going on here. There comes a point at which, if you fail to respond to attack and then suddenly wake up, at which the court starts asking, is this a genuine response to attack. In our respectful submission, there cannot be much doubt that this is a genuine response to an attack. We know why the delay took place but the Middletons are still looking for justice, and why not. I know it is part of my learned friend's submission that they are not responding to an attack at all, but one only has to look at -- and I am not going to ask your Lordship to read all 142 pages of the Silverdale website, because I would be beating my head against a closed door if I tried to do that -but one only has to really look at some early parts of it. Well, I happened to have picked, in the closing submissions, page 123: "IPP Media defames British investors, journalistic terrorism". Then there is a quote of the Guardian story of the attack on the Hai resident. One goes forward to page 125,
and "Mr. Middleton states as follows", at the top of page 125. 24 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: I am sorry, Mr. Price, I am in the wrong file. 25 MR. PRICE: So sorry, my Lord. Your Lordship should be in file
[Page 962]
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 964]
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 - DEFENDANT As regards AMI, paragraph 90 of the skeleton argument, AMI, the African Media Initiative, is an extremely suitable body to address complaints about media to, particularly when Mr. Mengi is being asked to chair or co-chair an important forum being presented by the AMI. The common and corresponding interest, we respectfully submit, is perfectly obvious. This email went also to the East African News but that was a newspaper which had an interest in the defendant's case in that email, and here again if I am right to submit that a properly researched publication in a newspaper would attract Reynolds privilege, then for the victim to draw the matter to the attention of a newspaper must attract common and corresponding interest privilege because otherwise the whole thing is defeated, the Middletons are the victims. So, I think that really covers that part of the skeleton argument. Going back to the paragraph 48 of the closing submissions, my learned friend says lots of time has elapsed between the attacks and the response. There are two answers to that. The attack was still up on the internet, the first of them as a matter of fact when Miss Hermitage responded. There cannot be an arbitrary time limit to responding to an attack. If your Lordship, for example, or me, or Mr. Rampton, were attacked in the columns of The times for being dishonest
CLOSING - DEFENDANT 1.2, tab A of which contains the whole Silverdale website. I just happen to have picked 1.2, tab A, page 123. Does your Lordship have that? MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. MR. PRICE: Right at the bottom of the page: "IPP Media defames British investors, journalistic terrorism". Over the page, Miss Hermitage reproduces the "murderous attack" story. Then over the page again, 125, top of the page, "Mr. Middleton states as follows", and there is the response; Mr. Middleton explains what actually happened. Then just below the top punch hole, IPP Media, the Nipashe newspaper, carried a further article, that four of Mr. Middleton's staff have been arrested. Commenting on the publication, Mr. Middleton says: "IPP Media continually prints defamatory material against me, accusing me of criminal activities. Few people who read the newspaper will be unaware of the media attacks," and so on and so forth. Then the next article, bottom of page 125: "Reginald Mengi uses IPP Media to destroy agricultural investment". Then on page 126, near the top of the page, third paragraph: "IPP is a powerful group of newspaper companies, Tanzania's premier information provider. Reginald Mengi is ultimately accountable." Then just below the top punch hole: "An objective examination of IPP Media's investigative accountable journalism in respect of the
[31] (Pages 961 to 964)

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 - DEFENDANT accusations reveals a worrying story in relation to IPP's conduct"; and there is the dud cheque and the forged contract story. "There is no such offence. IPP Media did not report the fact that the DPP withdrew all the charges, but repeated them," and so on and so forth. At the bottom of the page: "The Daily News reported that the High Court ordered the immediate release of the Middletons, but it was not reported in the....." It is perfectly clear, one only has to look at it all -- you can see this as one goes through the website -it is quite clear that it is a response to attack. If one looks now at paragraph 52 of the closing submissions, here is the point that my learned friend makes and, indeed, the claimant makes: "Well, I am not the attacker. My editors were. So, there should not be privilege for a response which defames me." So the question is: does the response of privilege only cover a response which defames the attacker? Well, point one is: well, actually, he is the attacker, either on the footing that he was party to the publications, or, even if that is wrong, because he cannot disassociate himself from them; but two, as a matter of law -- this is an important submission for your Lordship to at least understand what we are submitting -- it is no answer to a claim for privilege that the person defamed by the response had no part in the attack.
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 - DEFENDANT Mr. Nigel Watts' novel and an unpublished novel was accompanied by a photograph of a different Nigel Watts, thus suggesting that he had plagiarised the novel and dishonestly won an award." That was the libel that was sued on. Then one sees at the very bottom of the page that Nigel Watts, the property developer's solicitors insisted on that wording. Then one can go to the bottom of page 660: "One circumstance of particular importance in the present case, where it has been recognised that such a duty or interest exists, is where the defamatory statement made is to defend oneself against a defamatory attack." Then the well known case of Adam v. Ward is cited: a Major Adam falsely attacked a General Skibel and there was a response to that, which was published, containing defamatory statements about the plaintiff. Then there are quotes from their Lordships. I think I can move straight to Lord Atkinson, in the middle of the page: "These authorities in my view clearly establish that the person making a communication .... is not restricted to the use of such language merely as is reasonably necessary to protect the interest or discharge the duty. On the contrary, he will be protected even though his language shall be violent or excessively strong, if having regard to all the circumstances he might have honestly and on reasonable grounds believed that what he wrote or said was true and necessary for the purposes
[Page 966]
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 968]
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 - DEFENDANT We need to look at Watts v. The Times again. It has slightly complicated facts, because what happened was that The Times published an attack which was supposed to be accusing Nigel Watts, a writer, of being a plagiarist, but they actually made a mistake, because they ended up accusing Nigel Watts, the property developer, of being a plagiarist, because they published the wrong photograph. So, that was the start of it. That actually was not the attack. The attack was that Nigel Watts, the property developer, insisted on an apology, and he insisted on the apology including the fact that it was the writer who was the plagiarist, not him; and the writer, who was a completely innocent victim of both of these attacks -- he may well not have been a plagiarist, for all we know -- sued the newspaper and the property developer's solicitors for libel. It was held by the Court of Appeal that the newspaper did not have privilege, because they were the original attacker, it was not necessary for them to include the information, but Mr. Nigel Watts, the property developer's solicitors did have a privilege for insisting on the publication of the apology even though it defamed someone who was not the attacker. So, those are the slightly complicated facts. The judgment of Hirst LJ starts on page 656. There in the middle of the page, 657, your Lordship sees the apology: "Our article about the remarkable similarities between
CLOSING - DEFENDANT of vindication, although in fact it was not so." Lord Shaw, I think I can jump to the last five lines on the page: "If accordingly, and in so far as the communication deals with the matter not in any reasonable sense germane, the protection is gone." So, that is the only limit: it has got to be germane. "The occasion of its privilege does not reach a communication on this foreign and totally unconnected matter." Then this is a particularly important bit from Lord Diplock in Horrocks v. Lowe, who, as usual, got to the sense of it: "The exception is where what is published incorporates a defamatory matter but is not really necessary to the fulfilment of the particular duty or protection of the particular interest. Logically, it might be said that such a relevant matter falls outside the privilege altogether. But if this was so, it would involve the application by the court of an objective test of relevance to every part of the defamatory matter published ..... whereas, as everyone knows, ordinary human beings vary in their ability to distinguish what is logically relevant and what is not. Few, apart from lawyers" -- I think that may be saying too much about lawyers, but we will pass over that -- "have had any training which can qualify them to do so. So, the protection would be illusory or lost in respect of any defamatory matter which, upon logical analysis, can be shown to be irrelevant."
[32] (Pages 965 to 968)

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 - DEFENDANT So, it is a wide privilege. Then Hirst LJ goes through various -- well, perhaps one can look at page 665, at F, where Hirst LJ quotes Mr. Caldecott for the plaintiff, that is Mr. Watts, the author. This is a submission that Hirst LJ in due course accepted. "He submitted that there was a fundamental question to be answered, namely, whether there was in fact any need whatsoever to speak in defamatory terms at all of a third party when publishing an apology other than in very exceptional cases." Then the key to it all is page 670, just below E, where Hirst LJ turned to the third party proceedings. The third party proceedings were the proceedings which brought in the solicitors for Mr. Nigel Watts, the property developer. So, those are the proceedings that matter for our purposes. Then over the page, page 61, first of all, at B, Hirst LJ held that Mr. Watts and, therefore, his solicitors were joint tortfeasors. Then he says: "However the position of Mr. Watts .... (read to the words) .... I am satisfied the insertion of those words are fairly warranted by exigency of the occasion." Then the other two Lord Justices agreed. One might just read Sir Gibson, just below H: "Mr. Watts was wrongly identified as the man who had been guilty of plagiarism .... (read to the words) .... the Sunday times without risk of being sued for libel by any person named therein." So, it does not matter whether it is the attacker
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25
CLOSING - DEFENDANT self-explanatory. I have nothing to add to it. There is nothing that even approaches malice in this case. The test is, as one sees from a passage from Gatley that is cited in the skeleton argument, even to be allowed to stay on the pleading, what is adduced as supporting malice has to be more consistent with the presence of malice than its absence. If one takes each piece of malice alleged against Miss Hermitage here, it is, at best, equally consistent with her fiercely believing every word she says as it is with malice. It just is not a case of malice here. Essentially, the only way in which it can be put is that there is a sort of conspiracy between Miss Hermitage and Mr. Middleton to invent a story about the claimant having given assurances at the meeting with the High Commissioner. Well, there just is not a basis for any such finding. There is no reason for them to invent it and no reason to suppose that they have. So dealing, finally, with injunction, I have already said something about that, and this is a reference back to paragraph 5 of the closing submissions. There is no need for an injunction as regards letters and e-mails. The words complained of simply have not appeared for the last two years. liability. Take, for example, the pleading that the claimant assured Mr. Middleton and Dr. Pocock that he would pay the
23 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Before we go to remedy, can we just pause on
[Page 970]
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 972]
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 - DEFENDANT who ends up as the subject of the libel; the reply to attack privilege covers genuine responses to attack even if innocent third parties get caught up in it. We emphasise the wide latitude that is given, as Hirst LJ said, to people responding. Indeed, there is much in what my learned friend has already said on this subject which does not recognise the very wide latitude given to reply. Indeed, he has come close at some points to suggesting that for the privilege to work, the material has to be necessary in order to respond to the an attack, whereas your Lordship clearly sees from Watts and indeed, from the relevant parts of Gatley, which are cited in the skeleton argument, necessity is not the test. It is a very wide test which recognises that ordinary people do not approach this like counsel writing an opinion. At paragraph 51 of the closing submissions we make reference to some paragraphs from Gatley. There is a quote from Gatley: "The law does not concern itself with niceties in such matters." This is the latitude that is given. "All that required is that the response should not contain entirely irrelevant and extraneous material." That cannot possibly be said of anything that Miss Hermitage has published. As regards malice, that is dealt with in our skeleton argument; and in view of the time, I am not going to take your Lordship through that. It is there; it is
CLOSING - DEFENDANT costs of the defence of Benjamin's civil claim is incorrect and what he actually said was, "I will try to see that the case is withdrawn," and said nothing about costs. Now, Mr. Rampton is going to say, "That is not an expression of opinion. It is not comment. It is a fact, and it is untrue, and I am therefore entitled to damages and injunction and costs." Now, what is the answer to that in law, if those are the facts? MR. PRICE: Well, it rather depends whether your Lordship takes the view that Mr. Middleton has made it up -- that is point one; and point two, that Miss Hermitage knows that he has made it up. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Well, if no malice, then what is the basis of the defence that it is not justified because it is not true? MR. PRICE: We are assuming that for the purposes of argument? MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. MR. PRICE: Right. Well, we would say -- there are a number of ways of putting it. If your Lordship finds that Mr. Mengi lied in any material respect, for example, if your Lordship finds that the promise to stop the campaign in his media was made and was not true and was a lie, well, he cannot possibly then claim damages or any relief or even win on the footing that another of his alleged promises was not made. The sting of the libel is that he lied and he did; and the legal route
[33] (Pages 969 to 972)

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 22 23 24 25
CLOSING - DEFENDANT by which your Lordship gets to that is section 5 of the Defamation Act 1952, which says -- it is in Gatley at page 1371: "In an action for libel or slander in respect of words containing two or more distinct charges" -- well, on this hypothesis, there are several distinct charges -- "a defence of justification will not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not proved if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the claimant's reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining charges." So, if your Lordship accepts the submissions that we have made to your Lordship about the claimant having promised to stop the defamation campaign and not having done so and never having any intention of doing so, and if your Lordship accepts our submission about the claimant having been privy in one way or another way to the virulently defamatory attacks on the Middletons in his newspapers and so, in that way, complicit in Benjamin Mengi's corrupt campaign, well then, it just does not matter what your Lordship finds in relation to the promise to pay costs. alleged defamation, and again assume no finding of malice. If the claimant said, after listening to complaints about the media campaign, "I will look into it," but did not say, "I will stop it," is the argument the same?
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
21 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Now, apply that argument to another part of the
CLOSING - DEFENDANT the privilege will certainly encapsulate the non-malicious account of what went on at the meeting, including stopping the defamatory campaign and paying the costs, if that is non-malicious. The privilege will certainly cover that, and so we have a defence of privilege both on the common and corresponding interest and on the response to attack bases. As regards the future, if your Lordship's finding of fact was that the undertaking to stop the campaign was not made and that the assurance of paying the costs was not made, we say that we would get home, particularly looking at the thing in the round -- and I am not repeating all my submissions, but there has been a lot of lying and dishonesty here -- your Lordship, looking at it in the round, would say, well, this is substantially justified and is privileged. But if your Lordship is finding that those undertakings were not given, well then, there is no basis for the grant of an injunction recovering them, because your Lordship could not possibly be satisfied that there was any threat of repeating them, if your Lordship has made that finding, for the reason -- and I did not actually take your Lordship to this -- that before you can even begin to think of granting an injunction, there has to be a cause of action. The reference to that is in your Lordship's book. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: It did not originate with me. It is basic law
[Page 974]
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 976]
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 - DEFENDANT MR. PRICE: Yes, because what your Lordship is looking for is substantial truth, and then, if there is more than one charge and not all are proved, your Lordship is seeing whether the false words really injure his reputation, having regard to the truth of the remaining ones. But your Lordship has got as far, even on that hypothesis, as finding that he made a promise, did not honour it and had no intention of honouring it; and then it is a matter for judgment for your Lordship as to whether that substantially justifies the libel, first of all, and, if it does not, as to whether the untrue allegations materially injure his reputation, having regard to the truth of the remaining charges. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Well, on that analysis, what would be the remaining charges which would be true? MR. PRICE: Well, if the only thing that your Lordship is finding to be true is that he promised to look into it and did not, then it would be true that the claimant made a promise which he had no intention of keeping, and so he lied, and your Lordship would say, well, it may be unfortunate that he should have been accused of making other promises which he did not keep and which he did not intend to keep, but that does not injure his reputation, having regard to the truth of what is proved. All of that gets us home on justification. It is quite another matter when one then looks at privilege, because
CLOSING - DEFENDANT since the 19th Century. MR. PRICE: Yes. If there is no cause of action, there will be no injunction. There could be a quia timat basis in which there was no cause of action based on what has happened to date, but your Lordship would be very, very cautious indeed; before a quia timat action could survive on facts like this, your Lordship should have to be absolutely satisfied that there was going to be a malicious publication in the future, and your Lordship could not possibly be satisfied of that. Our final submission is, essentially, that the claimant's position is totally unmeritorious. He insists on leaving up grossly defamatory charges against Mr. Middleton and Miss Hermitage which he, essentially, must know that he cannot stand up, and yet he insists on them taking down their website when he has not even bothered to produce any evidence of whether there has been any substantial publication or, certainly, any publication that has done him any injury. He has totally failed to show that. His position is wholly unmeritorious, in our respectful submission. My Lord, I have taken longer than I thought I would. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: I do not think you have taken a moment too long, if I may say so. Thank you, Mr. Price. MR. PRICE: Thank you, my Lord. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Mr. Barnes?
[34] (Pages 973 to 976)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
DISCUSSION
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 13 14 15 16 18 19 20 21
DISCUSSION MR. RAMPTON: I think your Lordship ought to have both copies with the original signature on. MR. JUSTICE BEAN: All right. MR. RAMPTON: Thank you very much. (Same Handed) MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Well, we all make mistakes, and I think I have made one in sending off the usher to the other end of the building. I did want you to have a look at the letter, Mr. Price, before I disappear for the day. them here beyond teatime. There you are. to do is just have a look at it, Mr. Price. Mr. Rampton suggests that this puts the Confederation of Tanzania Industries point to bed; but please tell me if you think not. (Pause) proposed for Chairman of the Confederation of Tanzania Industries by Bonito Bottlers. I do not need to make a fuss about this, because he told us that Mr. Mosher is a director of Media Solutions Limited.
2 MR. BARNES: I am not following, my Lord. 3 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Just checking. 4 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, I would hope that I will not start tonight. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Can I do two things before I leave? The first is to hand in a copy of our closing submissions in writing. It will not represent anything like the whole of what I am going to say, but it is a vade mecum, if I put it like that. For once in the whole of my life at the Bar, it is actually longer than Mr. Price's, but that is because he has a bigger font, I think. It will not have my responses to some of the submissions Mr. Price made today, but I can do that in an orderly way if I get the transcript and read it over the weekend. The other document I would like to hand in is this, which came today, very rapidly, as (inaudible) disturbed to be given the information they were. I only have one copy. Can you hand that to his Lordship? (Same handed) It is only a small point.
10 MR. RAMPTON: We have found a copy. I was just trying to keep 12 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: One will come back. What I would just like you
17 MR. PRICE: Well, I mean, I see what it says. It says that he was
19 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: What is it? 20 MR. RAMPTON: It is a letter from the Confederation of Tanzanian 21 22 24 25
Industries, saying that the entry on their website is a mistake and Mr. Mosher is not a director of Bonito Bottlers. you, yes. Mr. Rampton, I am certainly not going to ask to you start your speech this evening.
22 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, precisely. 23 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: That was a different point. Here are the 24 25
23 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Shall I get a couple of copies made? Thank
copies. I have a better one, Mr. Rampton. It is fine. Anything else for today? 10.30 on Monday, Mr. Rampton.
[Page 978]
1
[Page 980]
1 DISCUSSION 2 MR. RAMPTON: Yes. I will finish on Monday, I hope. 3 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Yes. 4 (Adjourned till Monday, 19th November at 10.30 a.m.) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
DISCUSSION
2 MR. RAMPTON: I am grateful. 3 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: I will just do some tidying up while the usher 4
is fetching the copies of the document. (Pause) look to see if you have the original of the letter of August 2007?
5 MR. RAMPTON: As your Lordship is tidying up, could your Lordship 6 7
8 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: I have. 9 MR. RAMPTON: Would your Lordship keep it, or shall we? 10 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: I think it should be kept in the custody of the 11
court. I have a look at it?
12 MR. RAMPTON: Very well -- except that I have not seen it. Could 13 14 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: Please do, whilst we are waiting. 15 MR. RAMPTON: Would somebody fetch it? Thank you. (Same Handed) 16 17 18
Thank you very much. In that case, I think your Lordship ought to have the other one with the original signature on it as well. There were two. that, which I handed back to Mr. Mengi. photocopy in the file; one is what he called a file copy of this letter, without the heading but with his original signature on it; and then there is this third document.
19 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: There was what seemed to be a photocopy of 20 21 MR. RAMPTON: There are three documents in court: one is the 22 23 24
25 MR. JUSTICE BEAN: I see.
[35] (Pages 977 to 980)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
16 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 7 [Page 981] 966:16 appear 904:2 906:23 940:11 948:6 953:14 954:9 appearance 929:24 appeared 841:19 841:21 880:7 896:13 900:12 909:20 915:3 956:13 971:22 appears 907:15 951:12 958:13 appellate 890:2 appended 893:10 appendix 950:6 applause 927:22 applicant 888:22 888:22 891:20 application 892:5 955:25 968:16 applied 876:19 applies 958:24 apply 950:22 951:7 973:21 appraisal 872:24 appreciate 888:6 approach 865:8 872:24 970:15 approaches 865:9 971:3 approved 896:22 905:9 April 843:10 900:22 Arabic 871:3 arbitrary 962:23 arbitration 953:17,17 archives 944:14 944:15 area 935:9 areas 875:9 argue 892:17 argument 875:5,8 876:5 877:3,17 877:24 881:24 882:3 883:11 887:14 888:2 892:15,15 930:9 940:21 941:7,9 943:13,24 945:19 947:25 950:8 952:8 958:3 959:13,22 962:2,17 970:13 970:24 971:5 972:16 973:21 973:25 arises 951:17 arising 877:21 arm's 873:17 874:4 arose 957:8 Arrangements 863:6,11 arrested 964:14 arrive 956:25 arrived 863:25 935:15,16 Arrow 906:13 article 888:25 889:19 890:6,13 890:15 892:17 915:3 916:22 941:15 943:11 944:20,24 945:4 945:7,14 953:20 961:7 964:13,18 966:25 articles 900:9,12 901:4 906:23 907:11 918:12 918:23 927:11 927:14 942:15 942:15,23 948:5 aside 867:18 asked 866:4,16 903:4 908:9 911:17 913:17 914:5,8 917:3,6 917:11 923:16 924:12 928:3 929:20 933:25 935:5 962:5 asking 849:12,14 864:21 875:22 933:18 934:6,16 934:22,23 963:8 asks 900:23 906:18 917:18 952:24 aspect 883:8,9 885:11 918:25 920:5 947:16 aspects 958:24 assault 914:6 Assembly 960:15 assessment 890:17 assets 872:2 assist 882:17 898:19,20 919:4 assistance 884:3 887:2 955:12 assisting 884:5,8 886:24 associated 874:15 associates 898:24 assume 973:22 assumes
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
A ability 876:17 968:19 able 856:8 857:13 857:25 878:21 882:6 905:17 948:4,18,21 absence 950:11 971:7 absolute 913:9 absolutely 849:6 855:18 883:14 888:8 893:25 894:9 895:11 897:11 903:2 907:5,23 922:3 924:4 929:15 931:3 961:20 976:8 absurd 920:17 abuse 875:23 876:4 880:23,23 abused 889:3,10 889:23 academic 945:17 951:19 accept 877:14 899:8 904:5 905:3 acceptance 910:8 921:12 923:19 accepted 925:13 926:8 969:6 accepting 936:14 943:7,8 accepts 927:2 973:11,14 access 889:4,10 896:10 957:19 957:21 accessed 943:17 accessible 957:15 accompanied 888:19 967:3 account 915:25 916:24 938:2 975:3 accountable 964:23,25 accounts 861:7 accusation 883:3 930:16 accusations 965:2 accused 939:15,20 974:21 accuses 936:13 949:2 955:7 accusing 964:16 966:4,6 accustomed
884:24 achieve 941:5 achieved 880:9 acquaintance 878:11 acquaintances 877:25 acquire 858:4,8 acquired 939:21 acquisition 851:23 act 903:7 937:23 937:24 939:5,25 973:3 acting 867:3 922:8 923:18,25 924:18,23 926:15 933:9 958:5 action 863:17 876:7,12,17 878:24 880:24 882:14 889:16 889:16,18,21,25 891:6 906:12 925:11 930:18 933:9 936:7 937:6,11,15,16 937:18,25 938:3 938:6,6,9,10,13 938:16 973:4 975:23 976:3,5 976:7 actionable 876:20 activities 927:7 956:3 960:12 964:16 actor 896:18 acts 866:21 957:10,10 Adam 967:12,13 add 852:5 971:2 address 893:23 953:24 962:4 addressed 869:13 947:6 960:21 addressing 960:18 adduced 971:6 adhering 928:24 Adjourned 918:2 980:4 adjournment 874:25 955:3 admit 921:10 admittedly 905:25 advance 928:25 adversely 937:15 advice 921:15,17 922:16,23 923:3 923:4,9,12,16
923:23,25 934:4 934:7,16,17,22 934:22,24 935:3 935:13,16 937:14 advised 920:21 935:4 advising 922:21 923:5 affect 937:12,15 afraid 874:7 906:6,6 Africa 951:6 African 913:16 962:3,9 agent 944:24 ago 897:7,10 901:6 909:13 923:23 agree 852:18 854:23 858:17 862:19 868:5 882:6 agreed 969:21 agreement 873:16 874:4 912:11 agricultural 964:19 agriculture 893:20 894:4 949:9 aid 941:21 953:14 AIDAN 841:19 aimed 893:19 Alger 944:15 945:9 946:5 952:4 alive 953:15 allegation 883:5 888:9,18 890:9 930:9 931:3 allegations 878:7 880:7 937:17 974:11 allege 935:22 955:12 alleged 888:21 929:14 944:14 944:22 945:12 961:14 971:8 972:24 973:22 allegedly 913:12 allegiance 960:22 allocation 930:19 allow 851:12 allowed 842:20 891:23 940:15 971:5 allows 891:17 alter 918:7,9
919:2 alternative 940:4 940:5 altogether 885:18 968:15 American 876:14 876:21 AMI 877:12,15,16 959:15,17 962:2 962:3,6 amicably 903:8 ammunition 920:16 amounting 872:2 amply 921:8 analogy 956:24 analysis 968:24 974:14 angle 928:5 953:22 angles 865:9 annex 949:5 annual 861:3,7,18 872:3 960:18 answer 848:16 862:21 887:20 892:24 900:25 913:24 917:9,19 918:18 919:25 921:4,4 922:5 926:6 927:2 933:25 935:6,8 935:14,16 936:20 946:18 951:15 958:9 965:23 972:8 answered 935:7 969:7 answering 902:23 answers 906:19 919:25 962:20 anxious 902:7 922:9 anybody 883:12 884:9 948:18 951:3 anyway 901:8 958:10 apart 880:8 933:3 943:6 952:2 954:21 968:20 apologise 868:14 apology 966:10,11 966:21,24 969:9 appalled 932:25 appalling 953:12 apparent 879:24 apparently 847:4 918:22 appeal 890:3,5,10
MARTEN WALSH CHERER LTD
1ST FLOOR, 6-9 QUALITY COURT, CHANCERY LANE
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
16 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 7 [Page 982] 960:3,4 bit 859:20 873:13 879:22 886:12 889:2 911:18 916:13 917:18 928:5 931:18 968:9 bits 883:16 913:23 924:12 952:21 black 871:16 Blackledge 906:13 blanket 927:5 bless 867:8 blog 879:5 893:14 blue 893:25 board 845:22 847:11,20 848:4 848:8,12,20 850:8,17,25 852:23 853:5 854:12 855:6,18 856:2,5,8,25 857:21 858:11 858:21 859:5 860:16,20 862:16,22 863:17 864:6 865:5,12,13 867:6 873:3,23 955:6 957:9 body 931:10 961:13 962:4 boil 882:23 boils 882:8 883:2 bold 896:11 bones 903:14 Bonite 853:9,20 853:24 854:16 854:20,25 Bonito 977:22 979:19 book 944:13,14 945:12 975:24 books 956:18 bothered 940:11 961:22 976:16 Bottlers 853:9,21 853:24 854:21 854:25 977:22 979:19 Bottling 854:17 bottom 842:17 846:7,14 851:19 857:12 860:4,6 864:13 869:19 871:4,16,20 880:22 885:6 889:2,8 890:4 905:7 911:16 912:17 924:9 932:24 945:23 949:16 960:19 964:6,18 965:6 967:6,8 bought 844:7,14 bound 923:15 Bower 887:20 box 842:5,6 boyfriend 888:20 Branson 887:20 breach 932:20 breached 890:15 break 874:22 954:24 breakdown 942:13 breaks 950:19 Breed 841:19 bring 952:17 958:22 brings 953:21 British 894:7 941:20 949:2 955:7 957:6 958:2 963:20 964:7 broadcast 928:21 broader 951:23 broadly 898:15 899:7 broke 882:9 908:8 brother 844:8,11 851:7 872:12 873:18 884:9,14 897:16 898:17 899:6 902:21 903:2 916:5 918:6 923:18 924:2,18,23 926:16 929:24 940:6,11,14,15 brothers 851:10 brother's 844:4 851:8 852:20 854:3 866:7,13 874:10 brought 889:16 908:14,22,25 909:4,14 947:11 958:25 969:13 bucket 848:25 budget 951:6 Build 960:14 building 979:8 bundle 885:3 burden 943:24 Bureau 894:5 business 851:11 851:17,22,24
893:15 assuming 900:17 972:16 assurance 898:4 899:4 975:10 assurances 895:3 897:2,19,23 901:13 971:14 assure 857:22 assured 849:14 971:25 Atkinson 967:17 attached 869:12 attack 907:20 914:10 916:21 941:21 942:4 945:3,11 946:8 946:24 947:16 954:21 958:18 959:21 962:21 962:24 963:7,8 963:10,14,22 964:8 965:11,25 966:4,9,9 967:12 970:2,3 970:11 975:7 attacked 962:25 967:13 attacker 965:14 965:17,18 966:18,22 969:25 attacking 963:4 attacks 958:21,24 962:20 964:17 966:14 973:16 attempt 939:5 950:11 attempting 904:7 attempts 939:25 941:11 attend 867:10,11 877:15 914:22 attended 907:3 attention 869:25 878:18 886:14 886:15 929:11 929:12,15 940:22 941:2 948:17 956:5,19 962:14 attentively 961:10 attitude 878:15 attract 904:13 962:12,14 audience 953:11 August 842:8 843:6 845:14,17 845:21 846:19 847:2 864:10
868:12 870:7 978:6 author 897:17 946:12 969:5 authorise 889:6 889:12 authorities 944:9 967:17 authority 849:18 855:14 856:4 869:7,10 870:11 870:16 887:23 automatically 948:13 956:13 Autumn 944:19 available 845:18 892:10 948:3 aviation 961:17 961:22 avoid 920:11 937:12 award 967:5 awarded 891:6 937:18,25 938:2 aware 885:23 939:22 Azevedo 892:8 Aziz 843:13,20 845:3,9 Aziz's 844:20 a.m 980:4 B b 844:18 856:19 878:8 882:11 898:17 948:16 961:3,6 969:16 back 842:5 850:21 867:16 875:12 876:5,24 879:19 882:23 883:8,24 898:7 911:16 912:24 936:2 947:24 952:8 953:21 962:18 971:19 978:20 979:12 backdrop 876:3 881:15,20 bad 874:13 920:19 Bank 880:25 banking 872:10 bankrupt 852:20 Bar 977:9 Barnes 841:20 938:22 976:25 977:2 barrel 961:17,19 base 912:24 based 872:25
944:13 945:19 976:5 bases 945:3 975:7 basic 941:14 975:25 basis 858:11 886:18 889:25 895:24 897:4 902:13,15 903:20 906:13 941:6 971:15 972:14 975:17 976:4 bathe 914:2 BEAN 841:6 842:6,12 848:16 854:14 855:2 858:16 859:17 859:19,21 864:2 864:5 865:18,24 866:3,7,16 867:12,15 871:8 874:19,22 875:2 878:22 879:16 881:5,9 882:5 882:16 884:25 887:10,12 889:7 889:9 892:16,20 893:4 894:22 903:23 907:22 916:4,7 917:25 918:3 927:9,15 927:19 931:22 933:17 938:22 942:22 944:10 948:20 949:4,11 949:20 950:2,22 951:25 954:24 955:4 957:6,15 957:24 958:7,18 960:9,25 963:24 964:5 971:23 972:14,17 973:21 974:14 975:25 976:22 976:25 977:3,19 977:23 978:3,8 978:10,14,19,25 979:4,6,12,23 980:3 bear 870:24 934:18 935:20 935:24 937:13 938:14 946:10 beat 901:6 904:15 beating 963:17 bed 979:15 beg 936:10 beginning 842:8 857:5 865:23
875:6 881:11,12 883:24 914:8 942:18 947:4 begins 857:18 863:3,5 beings 968:19 believe 858:22,23 860:23,25 865:16 903:7 914:21,23 believed 865:15 903:15 967:24 believes 874:14 believing 971:10 belong 939:22 belonged 940:2 belongs 894:6 Ben 872:12 903:2 BENCH 841:1 Benjamin 842:21 843:3 868:18,20 873:18 882:12 882:17 883:9 884:2 885:5 893:24 894:3,16 894:16 896:19 902:21 907:8,9 916:5 917:21 918:6,13,16,17 918:20 919:2,4 922:8 925:11,19 925:20 926:9,11 926:18,23 940:3 953:3 961:14 973:18 Benjamin's 882:13 972:2 best 852:3 896:22 902:12 933:4,20 949:15 971:9 betray 945:12 better 863:12 879:10 904:16 914:11 935:7 943:20 960:14 979:24 beverage 871:25 Beverages 859:15 871:21 beyond 875:24 892:20 979:11 bias 929:24 biased 901:3 big 937:21 952:20 bigger 977:10 billion 844:4 852:5 858:13 859:2,16 860:10 862:6 Bingham 905:15 Bishop
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
16 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 7 [Page 983] 957:4,4,24 clear 847:8 877:18 883:2,25 884:6 886:25 895:23 897:4,9 898:25 899:15 902:13 903:10 904:20 906:15 906:16 907:16 909:20 913:21 930:24 932:2 936:2 946:22 965:9,11 clearance 851:4 clearly 882:25 885:13 886:3,22 887:23 896:17 899:3 911:23 912:20 922:25 923:11,15 933:4 935:9,22 942:8 943:11 947:14 958:24 967:18 970:11 clip 842:8 846:18 846:23 863:20 863:24 869:6,6 close 872:17,18 878:9 970:8 closed 963:17 closely 849:17 854:12 879:22 closing 875:1,3,6 875:7,14 876:1 877:1 878:1,14 879:1 880:1 881:1 882:1 883:1 884:1 885:1 886:1 887:1 888:1 889:1 890:1 891:1 892:1 893:1 894:1 895:1 896:1 897:1 898:1 899:1 900:1 901:1 902:1 903:1 904:1 905:1 906:1 907:1 908:1 909:1 910:1 911:1 912:1 913:1 914:1 915:1 916:1 917:1 918:1 919:1 920:1 921:1 922:1 923:1 924:1 925:1 926:1 927:1 928:1 929:1 930:1,11 931:1 932:1 933:1 934:1 935:1 936:1 937:1 938:1 939:1 940:1 941:1 942:1 943:1 944:1 945:1 946:1 947:1 948:1 949:1 950:1 951:1 952:1 953:1,24 954:1 955:1 956:1 957:1 958:1 959:1 960:1 961:1 962:1,18 963:1,19 964:1 965:1,12 966:1 967:1 968:1 969:1 970:1,16 971:1,20 972:1 973:1 974:1 975:1 976:1 977:6 clue 858:15 873:24 Coca 876:10 879:24 880:24 coin 901:11,12 Cola 876:11 879:24 880:24 colleague 878:10 colleagues 877:25 column 844:25,25 845:2,2 columns 962:25 come 854:24 873:11 883:8 884:15 885:15 885:21 908:18 913:18 915:8,10 936:21 937:24 943:15 952:15 952:21 970:8 979:12 comes 866:20,24 884:7 885:8 886:8 891:5 892:17 893:14 941:15 953:5 963:6 comfortable 866:24 coming 853:22 893:17 commended 960:4 commending 913:12 commends 913:19 comment
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
866:14 867:13 872:19 874:14 878:16,17 915:22 961:22 businesses 866:13 businessman 853:4 891:13 buttering 899:13 899:16 button 907:14 buy 849:9 buying 852:20 854:2 byline 882:22 C c 841:23 882:12 898:19 960:8,13 calculated 873:4 calculation 907:5 Caldecott 969:4 call 854:8 866:25 870:22 called 846:15 847:22 851:2 853:6 887:7 892:7 915:4 918:24 949:17 978:22 calling 889:23 campaign 882:16 884:6,7,18 885:12,14 886:21,24 887:2 896:17 899:9 917:21 919:3 925:17 926:17 929:14 930:17 930:18 931:4 935:23 936:15 941:18 959:5 972:21 973:13 973:18,24 975:4 975:9 candle 879:13 cant 888:7 capable 956:8 capacity 872:3 932:3 960:23 Capital 849:18 855:13 856:4,6 856:7,11 869:9 870:11 caravan 880:9 career 928:11 careful 896:8 906:7 carefully 898:7 carried 848:11 851:14 964:12 carries 954:21
Carry 887:12 carrying 848:9 Carter-Ruck 841:21 case 841:24 864:25 875:25 876:4,5 877:7 878:9 879:6 881:15 883:14 887:7 890:4,5 891:21 892:7,13 893:23 894:13 895:16,16,20,24 896:4,7 897:13 898:22 899:5 900:4 905:11 907:7 912:4 920:12 924:20 926:8,25 927:3 931:20,24,24 932:6 934:10 940:14 941:18 943:20,21 946:22 947:2,4 947:16,17 948:23 950:23 951:15 954:14 957:2,20 959:15 962:10 967:9,12 971:3,11 972:4 978:16 cases 888:4 898:19 912:23 944:5 950:14 969:10 Cass 944:5,16 casual 946:3 951:21 catalogue 927:15 categories 946:23 958:19 category 946:24 caught 970:4 cause 880:18 975:23 976:3,5 caused 851:13 876:13 877:13 879:25 caution 958:11 cautious 958:16 976:6 cease 900:23 Centre 894:5 centrepiece 889:14 Century 976:2 ceremony 960:16 certain 891:17,21 certainly 862:24 862:25 885:17
891:10,12 893:2 900:15 903:7 916:9 925:15 940:5 975:2,5 976:18 977:24 chair 962:5 Chairman 842:25 845:22 847:15 847:18 852:24 853:20 854:16 855:9 857:6 858:7,12,15,24 865:18,23 867:8 869:4,13 900:11 913:19 914:2 924:25 960:19 979:18 Chairmanship 843:24 challenged 877:15 925:6 Chamber 932:7 chance 899:14 Chancery 841:16 change 846:16 changed 939:3 channelled 953:10 character 890:10 characterised 887:14 charge 843:17,22 882:16 912:8 940:6 973:8 974:3 charges 882:9 912:7 946:18 965:5 973:5,6 973:10 974:13 974:15 976:13 charities 958:4 check 853:13 checked 936:17 checking 977:3 checks 917:10 cheque 965:3 Cherer 841:15 chief 869:12 885:24 906:21 924:25 926:15 chose 929:16 954:16 959:6 chosen 852:19 877:12 953:9 church 877:12 885:2,20 959:15 959:17,21,23,25 960:3,12,14,15 960:17,18,20 961:2,9,12,15 circle 871:16
951:19 circular 951:8 circulated 845:4 circumstance 967:8 circumstances 928:10 936:23 941:14 943:3 967:23 cite 887:7 cited 967:13 970:12 971:4 civil 889:16 972:2 claim 841:1 881:7 881:7 893:10 897:9 949:6,12 949:21 950:3,6 954:7 965:23 972:2,23 claimant 841:10 841:19 876:13 876:19 877:8 879:25 881:2,9 881:16 895:3,5 895:6 896:22 898:16 903:16 905:8 913:17 920:3,19,22 923:4,8 925:4 925:17 926:14 926:22 928:12 929:10 932:21 933:11 935:24 937:6 938:12,17 939:8 943:15 944:4,11,14 946:20 950:11 952:9,11 956:22 958:12 959:8 965:14 971:14 971:24 973:12 973:15,23 974:18 claimants 891:6 943:25 955:9 claimant's 877:23 879:2 916:5 920:23 925:3 927:5 928:2 933:9 938:7 939:5,25 940:18 945:12 952:7 973:9 976:12 claimed 937:10,18 940:13 claiming 938:8 claims 907:10 925:5 939:8 961:15 class 947:5,7,10
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
16 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 7 [Page 984] 927:15 conventional 956:12 conversation 917:4,7 conversations 916:20,24 convince 894:25 convincingly 891:3 copies 846:12 944:7 977:23 978:4 979:2,24 copy 843:4 846:3 846:3,4,7,7,9,14 846:15 847:10 868:11 887:10 977:6,16 978:22 979:10 corner 926:3 953:8 Cornhill 905:16 Corporate 924:25 926:15 Corporation 881:2 correct 860:25 870:14 881:8 corrected 939:17 940:8 correspondence 868:13 876:7 877:19 879:23 correspondent 908:15,23,25 915:4 corresponding 941:6,24 943:17 944:3 947:8,10 947:15 950:22 952:10 953:22 954:20 955:22 957:2,8,12 959:20 962:7,15 975:7 corrupt 884:8 885:8 886:24 893:7 949:18 973:18 corrupted 894:17 corruption 843:11 843:17 883:9 885:8 886:25 893:4,23 894:3 894:5,8,13,15 894:20 949:24 951:6 961:8 corruptly 882:17 884:3 cost 860:10 costly 885:7 costs 879:12 880:16 882:13 901:23 937:7,11 972:2,4,8 973:20 975:4,10 Council 853:16 854:16 878:16 878:17 counsel 895:6 905:17 924:25 925:19 926:15 926:22 938:8 946:9 970:15 counterproduct... 904:15 counter-factual 927:7 countries 950:19 country 893:6 941:3 945:13 couple 977:23 courage 960:5 course 894:19 895:10 896:3 900:4 902:2 903:25 910:23 917:13 919:21 920:22,23 934:11 938:2,24 940:9 943:2 969:6 court 841:1,16 879:12 888:22 889:6,12,19,22 890:2,3,5,7,11 890:17,19,22 891:7 892:3,6 898:19 903:18 905:14,19 906:8 906:11,12,14,15 909:22 912:23 917:17 919:21 920:12 921:23 934:9,18 935:20 952:5 956:11 963:7 965:7 966:16 968:16 978:11,21 courts 841:2 884:4 894:17 953:3 court's 890:16 cover 871:3 875:10,13 904:7 927:4 965:17 975:5 coverage 882:11 895:7,13 898:4 900:5 904:15,22
881:24 883:7 887:13,15,19,24 887:25 891:8 892:12 930:7,9 972:6 commentators 944:22 Commenting 964:14 Commerce 932:7 Commissioner 897:14 902:6,19 903:3 939:8 971:15 commitment 893:22 949:9 committee 843:2 843:25 845:11 847:15,18,21,25 850:6,7,11,16 850:20 851:4 858:25 865:19 865:23 866:21 866:22 867:2,3 867:4 869:4 873:11,15 common 886:13 895:21 900:4 902:9 918:20 941:6 943:16 944:3 945:3,10 945:19 946:23 947:4,7,15 950:22 952:10 953:22 954:20 955:21 957:2,7 959:19 962:6,14 975:6 commonly 892:2 950:13 commonwealth 878:16,17 communicate 941:23 communicated 957:11 958:15 958:20 communication 868:2,3,4,10 880:8 956:6 967:19 968:4,7 communications 868:22 932:11 community 958:2 companies 853:6 853:25 854:22 857:10 964:22 company 842:4 843:2,3,25 844:5,8,13
848:11,22,24 849:2,23 850:14 850:23 852:4,6 852:8,10,21 855:8,9 856:13 859:16 860:9 861:21 863:14 866:9 868:17 869:22 871:24 871:25 874:10 876:11 company's 919:13 comparator 898:9 comparison 898:9 compensation 879:7 complain 881:17 881:19 961:13 complainant 920:16 complained 879:5 880:6,7 883:17 884:19 888:6 930:5 937:4 943:18 944:4 946:12 956:21 959:6 971:22 complaining 890:14 complaint 876:10 939:16 complaints 901:2 962:4 973:23 complete 854:17 860:14 903:17 939:24 940:19 completely 921:12 923:19 966:13 completion 862:5 862:10 complex 879:13 complicated 966:3 966:22 complicit 973:17 compromise 842:21 computer 931:15 conceal 960:22 concealed 924:22 926:12 conceivable 912:22 924:22 concern 876:13 879:25 891:20 905:10 970:18 concerned 907:8 922:22 952:5 concerning 918:12 concerns 898:21
928:11 concluded 851:22 concludes 946:21 conclusion 896:20 903:21 917:18 919:23,25 929:8 938:12 conclusions 854:11 900:19 929:7 950:10 condemned 913:20 conditionality 921:13 conduct 931:4 937:3 965:3 conducting 884:5 935:23 936:14 Confederation 853:11,12,16 854:15 977:20 979:14,18 conference 843:11 843:16,20,21 844:21 877:15 908:3,6 925:2 928:22 conferences 907:4 908:6 confident 896:12 confirm 873:16 874:3 confirmation 863:16 confirmed 873:5 873:10 878:3 923:13 944:15 conflict 903:13 conflicted 922:2 922:21,22 923:5 923:6 926:24 conflicts 899:8 congregation 960:22 961:9 connected 852:24 connection 853:3 consciously 955:13 consequence 868:15 consequences 961:20 Consequently 876:21 consider 855:5 858:16 868:7 considerable 905:10 954:8,19 considerably 851:22 932:17 considered
906:20 922:16 946:20 consistent 898:6 898:15 941:5 971:7,9 conspiracy 930:19 930:24 931:4 971:12 constrained 921:9 construed 956:21 consult 850:10,15 consultation 850:20 934:3 consulted 866:18 contacted 917:11 contain 970:20 contained 877:5 containing 967:14 973:5 contains 880:4 964:2 contemplating 902:21 contemporary 944:17 945:18 content 914:21 contention 944:23 945:2 contest 903:16 context 883:12,19 883:20 886:24 888:8,10,20 891:10,15 892:13 893:13 893:16,25 894:11,21 945:25 continent's 927:12 continually 964:15 continued 842:11 885:12 contract 939:20 940:3 965:3 contradicted 886:6 contrary 889:13 903:6 912:10,25 967:21 contrast 912:13 control 850:17 852:22 858:10 862:18,20 controlled 886:4 886:21 controlling 884:18 controversial 919:14 convenient
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
16 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 7 [Page 985] 955:6 957:9 deputy 888:14 915:21 derogatory 929:13 describe 854:15 902:3 917:2 describing 920:17 description 885:4 923:11 deserves 928:9 designed 882:16 921:22,22 desire 940:12 destroy 964:19 destroyed 894:4 detailed 856:10 details 866:8 developer 966:7 966:10 969:14 developer's 966:15,19 967:7 development 951:6 devoted 885:4 945:24 difference 852:5 852:10 904:4 916:15 different 865:3,8 865:9,9 890:8 907:16 908:16 908:17 914:3 934:11 967:3 979:23 difficult 845:6 871:15 886:17 896:6,9 900:13 929:6 943:4 954:7 difficulty 936:13 dilemma 906:9,14 diligence 850:19 866:23 diminishing 886:11 Diocese 960:20 961:10 Diocese's 960:18 Diplock 968:9 direct 876:10 887:22 929:9 directed 886:4,21 898:23 directing 884:17 directive 848:12 848:20 directly 874:8 director 848:5 852:6,8,9,11 853:7,9,20,23 853:25 854:16 854:19,20,22 855:2 857:9 861:10,16,21 873:6 919:6,17 919:19 921:15 977:22 979:20 directors 845:22 852:4 dirty 930:17 disagree 882:21 disappear 979:9 disassociate 965:20 disavowed 938:8 disbelieve 928:19 discharge 967:21 disclose 938:17 disclosure 896:12 896:13 905:12 905:21 938:15 discontinued 936:6 937:6 938:7,12 discontinuing 937:10 discounting 938:5 discuss 908:5 910:7 discussed 850:5,7 900:14 908:2 910:4,10,14 915:24,25 DISCUSSION 977:1 978:1 979:1 980:1 discussions 908:4 disgraceful 899:19 920:8 dishonest 962:25 dishonestly 967:4 dishonesty 975:13 disinvest 848:9,21 848:23 858:21 865:2 dismiss 906:12 dismissed 881:7 890:10,11 disparity 937:3 dispute 882:11 899:22 904:17 907:6 912:21 923:18 924:18 924:24 939:10 960:25 disputes 932:13 dissociate 885:18 dissolve 847:20 distancing
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
909:25 covering 917:22 922:5,6 926:14 covers 955:17 962:17 970:3 cover-up 919:24 921:8 924:14,14 926:13 co-author 944:12 co-chair 962:5 credibility 875:17 917:17 930:12 933:3 939:7 940:18 credible 897:4 903:9 credit 897:5,6 crim 949:2 criminal 964:16 critical 891:8 897:8 913:16 criticised 885:15 criticism 890:7 cross-examinati... 842:3,11 870:22 892:21 895:17 897:8 901:22 912:4 913:14 930:22 931:8 cross-examined 846:17 897:5 crying 902:25 curious 883:13 903:5 949:13 current 853:12 currently 872:2 custody 978:10 cuttings 960:11 D d 841:23 856:17 856:19,20 870:24 871:2,15 898:20 Daily 913:15 965:7 damage 889:20 damages 879:6 891:7 937:16,17 937:21,25 938:2 938:9,10 972:7 972:23 damning 912:5 Dar 887:3 912:24 date 865:21 866:2 867:14,14 869:5 869:8 870:9 873:6 879:21 949:7,14 976:5 dated 856:17 Datoo 919:8,12
928:13 daughter 888:17 888:18 day 841:23 846:20 848:24 852:10 852:10 898:3 901:15 908:5,8 910:23 914:6 917:2 919:8,16 921:11 923:20 924:17 925:21 933:12,15 936:2 954:22 961:23 979:9 days 848:25 861:9 DC 872:24 deal 847:23 850:22 867:24 875:18 882:7 896:3 dealing 908:15,16 971:18 deals 919:22 968:4 dealt 881:24 907:2,18 911:20 913:15 930:12 955:20 970:23 debate 891:15,19 deceased 872:14 December 912:12 949:22 decide 850:8,10 850:12 888:4 902:14 935:11 936:9 946:25 decided 847:20 873:3 886:16 908:6 920:24 924:6 926:16 934:17,23 deciding 933:21 956:2 decision 847:5 848:20 855:24 856:2 873:8 892:3 920:23 922:7 934:21,21 decisions 876:2 decisive 905:2 declined 868:7 declines 935:25 defamation 876:18 878:9 885:12 889:14 889:17 925:11 925:12,17 937:23,24 973:3 973:13,22 defamatory
882:11 884:5,7 885:23 887:2 899:9 900:5 901:3 918:12 935:23 936:6,16 936:17 943:7 947:6 955:6 958:21 959:5 964:15 967:11 967:12,15 968:11,17,24 969:8 973:16 975:4 976:13 defamed 965:24 966:21 defames 963:20 964:6 965:16,17 default 852:14 defeated 962:16 defence 877:19 881:6,16,19 930:7,8 940:19 943:12,12 950:23 951:7 956:8,12 972:2 972:15 973:7 975:6 defences 876:2 defend 967:11 defendant 841:12 841:21 875:1 876:1 877:1 878:1,15 879:1 880:1 881:1 882:1,17 883:1 884:1 885:1 886:1 887:1 888:1 889:1 890:1 891:1 892:1 893:1 894:1 895:1 896:1 897:1 898:1 899:1 900:1 901:1 902:1 903:1 904:1 905:1 906:1 907:1 908:1 909:1 910:1 911:1 912:1 913:1 914:1 915:1 916:1 917:1 918:1 919:1 920:1 921:1 922:1 923:1 924:1 925:1 926:1 927:1 928:1 929:1 930:1 931:1 932:1 933:1
934:1 935:1 936:1 937:1 938:1 939:1 940:1 941:1 942:1 943:1 944:1,16,19 945:1 946:1,10 947:1 948:1,3 949:1 950:1 951:1 952:1 953:1 954:1 955:1 956:1 957:1 958:1 959:1 960:1 961:1 962:1 963:1 964:1 965:1 966:1 967:1 968:1 969:1 970:1 971:1 972:1 973:1 974:1 975:1 976:1 defendants 955:11 defendant's 875:4 878:2 882:13 945:5 948:11 962:10 defending 882:13 deferred 864:13 865:5 defined 947:5 957:3,4 definite 904:24 definition 951:4 degree 883:21 891:17,23 893:15 delay 963:10 deliberate 896:18 905:9 919:3 deliberately 904:12 921:24 delighted 927:18 democratic 941:16 demonstrate 943:16,25 952:9 demonstrated 921:8 denial 901:12 927:5 denied 912:8 deny 895:8 depart 928:7 department 905:23 depend 933:23 951:8 depends 972:10 Deputies
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
16 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 7 [Page 986] 923:3,8,13 924:5,12,16,22 926:5 928:2,12 928:13,16,18 929:5 932:23 933:4,5,10,12 933:14,19,20 934:13 935:19 935:24 937:10 938:14,24 940:18,23 942:9 942:24 944:21 946:3 947:25 948:3,11 950:12 950:14,16 951:20,21 961:19,20 976:16 evidence-in-chief 922:2 evidently 939:15 evils 874:16 exact 865:21 866:2 867:14 870:9 exactly 907:11 910:25 912:25 exaggeration 891:18,23 examination 896:8 934:9,18 935:20,25 937:13 938:14 964:24 example 842:24 880:25 909:25 911:15 913:10 962:24 971:24 972:20 examples 842:24 912:15 960:6 exams 930:23 exception 968:11 exceptional 969:10 exceptions 891:2 excessively 967:23 exchanged 930:20 executive 869:12 885:24 900:11 960:19 exercise 862:11 953:6 exercising 953:19 exhibit 868:11 893:11 900:6 931:9 exhibited 843:4,7 932:15 exhibiting 930:20 exhibits 898:2 900:3 exigency 969:20 existed 958:17 existing 926:4 exists 946:11 959:7 967:10 expect 879:3 892:16 897:21 904:22 expected 895:9 913:25,25 expenditure 879:12 880:16 expense 936:23 experienced 918:21 experiences 952:25 953:12 961:24 expert 942:21 950:12,14 explain 848:15,19 864:18,21 911:5 916:10 explained 909:6 explaining 911:9 940:25 explains 916:7,9 964:11 explanation 917:23 920:14 921:5 924:10 927:21 935:18 explanations 941:4 exposed 890:7 exposes 916:3 exposing 961:7 expressed 943:11 954:19 expression 890:25 941:15 953:7 972:5 extensively 944:8 extent 899:13 extraneous 958:25 970:21 extraordinary 852:20 905:25 927:6 extremely 916:14 924:8 962:3 ex-judicially 905:16 eye 851:10,10 eyebrows 920:11 eyes 858:13 e-mail 931:11,17 938:11 e-mails
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
868:19 distinct 973:5,6 distinction 890:20 distinctly 903:5 distinguish 968:19 distracted 902:4 902:12 distressed 902:2,5 902:12 distrust 906:4 disturbed 977:15 disturbing 874:15 dis-investing 848:10 diverting 886:12 divest 848:7,13 851:14 854:13 855:6,19,25 856:25 863:14 865:12 DIVISION 841:1 document 854:14 854:24 855:7,8 857:5 859:12 860:3 865:15,16 869:17 870:23 871:2 977:14 978:4,24 documents 841:24 846:11,18,23 847:22 856:16 869:6 871:8,12 875:5 932:6,14 938:16 944:23 978:21 doing 854:2 858:19 881:14 882:24 888:11 895:23 899:12 899:19,20 907:17 919:5 926:19 973:14 domestic 890:12 door 963:17 double 876:17 doubt 894:12 898:7 901:9 903:21 905:15 905:19,20 906:25 939:2 954:5 958:3 963:9 Doubts 850:21 downloaded 951:18 DPP 965:5 Dr 878:4,11,12,14 882:10 903:25 971:25 draft 899:25 drafting
942:17 draw 869:25 940:21 941:2 952:6 962:13 drawing 888:11 drawn 886:14,15 896:20 900:19 919:23 929:10 929:11,15 950:10 956:19 dropped 912:9,13 drove 894:17 dud 965:3 due 850:19 866:23 917:13 969:6 duty 923:15,24 967:10,21 968:13 duty-bound 923:17 D.2.4 871:4 E E 841:23,23 861:3 861:5 931:9 969:11 Eady 943:14,23 EARDLEY 841:19 Eardley's 937:14 938:11 earlier 863:25 926:6,7 earliest 883:25 early 865:20 866:2 963:18 earth 854:2 905:18 ease 899:6 easier 892:11 easiest 884:22 East 962:9 easy 896:15 950:24 956:25 ECHR 888:4 editor 885:25 901:4 907:2 909:16 914:21 915:21,22,22,23 920:6,8 921:16 922:17 936:12 editorial 907:4 908:5,6 910:5 927:6 929:18,20 929:25 editors 910:8 936:9 965:14 Editor's 921:2 effect 880:10 892:9 914:3 922:25 928:11
937:24 938:3 effectively 945:24 946:17 effort 863:14 877:8,9 879:12 efforts 884:8 885:5 eight 907:16 either 855:4 858:11 862:16 862:21 880:19 904:20 923:5 932:16 965:19 eject 863:11 elapsed 962:19 elder 961:15 elements 876:4 email 841:17 879:25 880:8 885:2 886:6 961:16 962:9,11 emails 877:11,12 879:23,24 880:12 884:20 884:21 930:20 959:12,15 961:21,23 emanating 906:3 embarking 901:7 embedded 893:17 emerged 846:18 emotional 902:4 902:12 emphasise 875:8 950:15 970:4 employee 912:19 encapsulate 975:2 encapsulated 899:10 encapsulates 887:5 enclosed 900:9 ended 889:14 895:5 966:6 ends 905:18 917:14 929:5 970:2 enemy 933:6 engage 930:17 engaged 871:24 893:4 engineered 844:10 engines 948:13 England 905:14 934:15 English 862:3 892:11 943:11 953:21 enormous 879:11
880:9,16 ensure 851:13 929:22 entire 957:5,5 entirely 895:19 941:5 958:25 970:20 entitled 894:2,9 972:7 entrepreneurs 927:13 entry 977:21 episode 938:17 equally 971:9 es 887:3 912:24 escalated 886:11 espionage 944:13 espousing 895:6 essential 899:7 essentially 876:10 898:5 903:12 971:11 976:11 976:14 establish 897:2 950:11 967:18 established 891:4 905:21 ethical 864:19 874:14 ethics 913:2 929:22 European 887:7 888:22 890:22 euros 891:7 evaluation 872:24 evening 977:25 event 851:21 897:14 events 897:7,11 eventually 847:20 851:20 925:23 evidence 841:23 842:13 844:23 875:18 877:8,14 877:19 878:8 879:9 880:5 883:14 895:6,7 896:4,8,9,15,16 898:6,13 901:17 902:24,24 903:13,24 905:12,22,25 906:3,10,10,15 907:5,10 909:17 911:22 913:23 914:4 916:2,13 916:17,23 917:3 917:14,16,20,23 918:5 921:9,20 922:2,5,12,20
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
16 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 7 [Page 987] 960:15 founded 876:15 founder 866:9,14 four 876:23 935:5 964:13 fourth 948:25 Frank 944:16 fraud 854:7,9 874:9 free 941:16 freedom 890:25 941:15 953:7 French 892:10,11 fresh 893:17 Friday 841:4 friend 894:2,9 906:5 918:15 923:16 924:24 926:15 942:6 943:22 944:20 945:13 958:12 958:20 961:16 962:19 965:13 970:6 friendly 958:4 friendship 946:11 friend's 898:2 900:4 947:3 963:13 front 887:13 899:24 928:15 fulfilment 968:12 full 855:14,16 875:25 883:10 893:18 926:14 fully 892:15 926:19 928:6 939:21 function 847:25 848:3 fundamental 969:7 fundraising 862:6 862:7 funds 956:4 funny 939:16 further 847:17 881:21 896:3 899:23 904:25 908:4 940:19 948:14 958:9 960:11 964:13 Furthermore 850:4 870:3,12 fuss 979:19 future 880:17,19 898:4 975:8 976:9 G G 841:23 galling 925:15 game 933:7 Gassior 888:16,17 888:24 Gatley 946:8 956:19 970:12 970:17,17 971:4 973:3 gauntlet 945:13 946:17 general 884:9 891:20 905:10 936:19 945:25 952:16 957:10 960:18 967:13 generally 903:9 946:5 951:24 generated 948:13 948:24 950:20 genuine 860:23 865:16 906:4 940:12 963:8,10 970:3 germane 968:5,6 getting 884:3 911:19 Gibson 969:21 give 848:24 855:21 862:21 895:3 920:16 921:14,16,22 922:4 923:12,25 928:16 941:25 954:4 given 848:3 858:20 865:15 882:9 887:10 888:10 892:8 895:21 912:7,16 920:14,20 922:24 924:16 925:5,8 926:5 927:7 928:10 932:23 934:23 935:6,8 937:8 940:23 948:3 954:3,11 955:13 955:16 959:4 960:3 970:5,8 970:19 971:14 975:17 977:16 gives 893:18 915:25 916:23 955:12 giving 899:4 913:8 922:22 928:11 941:20 953:13 glanced 903:10 glancing 877:17 glow
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
930:23 971:21 F F 969:3 facilitated 885:6 fact 844:13 853:4 860:16 861:7 873:4 887:19 888:9,10 889:5 889:11 890:21 892:9 893:18 894:14 896:3 902:15 904:8 906:17 918:7,9 919:21 921:8 922:7 924:23 925:14 942:8,14 945:20 950:9 953:9 955:15 957:3,8 959:3 962:22 965:5 966:11 968:2 969:8 972:6 975:9 factor 890:20 facts 947:2 966:3 966:23 972:9 976:7 faded 897:23 fail 937:2 963:6 973:7 failed 912:24 976:19 failing 896:2 fails 893:22 failure 901:4,5 920:5 921:3 faintly 955:24 fair 902:3 923:11 955:14 fairly 904:21 907:24 944:7 955:11 969:19 fall 904:17 951:18 fallback 895:4,25 falls 927:3 968:14 false 888:18 889:5 889:11 896:4 901:3 906:10,11 929:15 935:2,2 958:15 959:7 974:5 falsely 967:13 falsity 921:6 familiarity 883:21 893:15 famous 854:12 943:6 far 858:7 886:11 898:14 922:21 922:22 929:7
954:6 968:4 974:7 farm 884:3,11 893:5,7 894:8 894:13,17 899:22 904:17 912:21 937:2 939:9,21 940:2 941:18 951:4 952:22 957:22 favour 918:13,16 929:24 favoured 918:18 favouring 918:23 feature 912:2 features 883:13 915:22 February 900:7,8 908:17 911:17 925:23,25 fed 928:14 feel 868:21 874:12 874:13 feeling 952:5 feels 920:19 fell 932:18 felt 849:15 901:21 923:4,23 941:2 942:8 fetch 978:15 fetching 978:4 fiction 855:6 fiercely 971:9 fifth 949:8 fight 874:16 figure 891:9,12 892:7 948:8 949:13 951:12 figures 948:8,10 950:9,15 file 842:16 844:17 844:17 845:16 846:15 856:13 856:17 864:24 867:17,18,19 870:22,22,25 871:7,10 884:23 887:10 898:8 906:24 914:12 925:19 926:4,4 926:6,8,9,9 931:20,20,24,24 931:24 932:6,12 932:12 937:7,9 944:9 948:16 950:17 960:7,13 961:3,6 963:24 963:25 978:22 978:22 filed 915:4,6
925:18 files 846:2 final 852:13 855:24 976:11 finally 870:21 872:23 874:7 889:22 971:18 Finance 881:2 financial 873:2 financially 844:11 find 845:6 870:23 878:12 889:7 912:22 925:25 944:6 948:18 952:21 956:24 finding 971:16 973:22 974:7,16 975:8,16,20 findings 878:18 finds 877:7 878:10 883:22 885:11 906:8 917:13 929:3 940:21 944:8 947:23 959:12 960:13 972:19,21 973:19 fine 884:25 979:24 finish 913:4 956:23 980:2 fired 884:14 firm 925:8 929:6 firmly 896:5 first 842:2 845:13 848:17 850:3 853:17 863:8,9 865:22 866:17 867:9 870:2,3,4 870:8 872:24 885:2 895:2 898:2 899:14,18 900:3,7 903:12 905:4 906:19,24 908:3 924:19 931:11 938:3 942:8 946:22 952:22 962:21 969:15 974:10 977:5 firstly 901:13 fits 957:13 five 847:23 877:5 891:15 912:14 912:15 949:12 949:13,15 951:13,14 968:3 Floor 841:15 flow 956:4 flowed 961:20 focused
956:5 959:16,17 focusing 880:12 899:20 follow 878:23 892:11 followed 929:22 954:9 followers 885:20 following 890:4,5 898:3 977:2 follows 935:21 963:23 964:10 font 977:10 footing 965:19 972:23 forcing 893:5 foreign 968:8 forged 965:3 forgetting 880:11 forging 912:10 939:20 940:3 forgive 849:8 forgotten 901:14 903:14 939:11 form 942:4 formally 858:4,8 formed 901:9 903:21 former 878:10 944:11 formulaic 907:14 907:25 forth 866:23 889:24 893:21 911:14 918:10 941:19 945:22 951:7 960:5 963:4 964:18 965:6 forthcoming 897:19 fortiori 954:17 959:14 forum 962:6 forward 859:4,10 861:3 867:6 877:2 931:17 934:8,14,15,18 938:21 939:5 944:22 948:25 963:22 forwarded 931:13 931:19 forwards 932:5 found 866:11 877:4 884:19 887:20 892:5 925:23 950:23 957:3 979:10 foundation
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
16 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 7 [Page 988] 896:2 905:6 974:8 honoured 895:22 897:20 honouring 883:3 886:23 887:17 974:8 hope 855:16 875:3 875:4 977:4 980:2 hopeless 935:19 935:19 Horrocks 968:10 hospital 961:17,22 hostile 882:11 House 841:15 HQ10D04585 841:1 huge 936:23,24 human 887:7 888:22 890:19 890:22 902:21 941:14 968:18 hundreds 941:20 952:13 953:14 961:23 hung 942:7 963:3 husband's 953:12 Hyde 953:8 hypothesis 926:24 973:6 974:7 I IBPL 856:5,25 862:11 ICC 932:7 idea 916:4 917:6 919:17 926:11 identical 947:2 identified 969:22 identify 930:8 identity 926:25 ill 868:23 illusory 968:23 ill-researched 918:23 imaginable 932:20 imagine 887:21 immediate 965:8 immoderate 891:24 impact 918:14 impacts 933:2 implement 848:12 849:7 implicated 844:10 894:20 implication 874:8 885:17 implications 941:19 implies 883:6 impolite 902:22 importance 890:20 967:9 important 846:11 876:3 893:12 897:15 899:12 923:14 924:7,8 941:13 946:10 962:5 965:22 968:9 importantly 885:22 impossibility 876:20 impossible 876:13 impression 901:9 921:23 impressive 928:22 improbable 913:6 improved 893:20 impugning 897:5 inability 898:24 inaudible 848:22 848:24 849:2 855:21 865:8,10 866:10 944:20 945:3 977:15 include 966:18 included 950:16 includes 889:20 957:4 including 867:5 868:13 869:7 885:12 899:24 966:11 975:3 incoherent 917:3 917:14 923:9 inconsistent 895:19 incorporated 875:9 incorporates 968:11 incorrect 972:2 independence 929:19,21,25 independent 850:23 851:21 indication 883:15 individual 872:17 883:20 891:19 948:23 Industries 853:11 853:13,16 854:15 977:21 979:15,19 industry 872:10 inevitable 922:3 inexplicable
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
glanced 903:10 glancing 877:17 glow 914:2 go 842:5,16 844:17,24 849:12,21 850:3 850:21 851:2,4 852:19 857:24 859:10,25 861:3 862:9 864:19 867:20 890:15 903:5,19 909:17 911:16 926:19 930:12 931:17 938:21 940:19 940:20 941:10 947:22,24 952:20 958:7 967:8 971:23 gobbledygook 864:18 865:11 goes 877:2 892:20 894:4 896:3 899:4 932:4 936:2 941:7 948:25 949:8,16 950:17 953:13 963:22 965:10 969:2 going 867:10,16 875:10,16,16,23 876:5,8 880:18 881:23 882:21 892:25 893:2 896:21 899:18 904:13 906:7 912:20 913:21 919:19,24 924:13,13 926:10,17 927:13 929:14 936:18,21,22 952:23 953:10 961:16 962:18 963:5,15 970:24 972:5 976:9 977:7,24 golden 914:2 good 877:24 889:24 904:11 914:7 917:24 928:23 929:8 930:7,15 941:4 947:23,24 Google 952:22 Governing 853:16 854:16 government 953:3 953:13 government's
941:20 grab 884:11 grades 907:2 grant 975:17 granting 975:22 grateful 978:2 grave 946:13 gravest 932:20 great 867:24 882:7 896:3 906:22 929:17 929:18 greater 954:19 greatest 927:12 green 871:2,16,16 gross 912:2 921:6 grossly 862:16,22 940:7 976:13 ground 886:13 895:21 900:4 902:9 grounds 967:24 group 872:4,5,6,9 872:12 964:21 growth 863:12 grubby 933:3 Grunwald 943:14 943:23 944:5 954:23,25 955:5 958:2 Guardian 844:20 913:11,18 914:5 920:3 921:16 922:17,21 925:2 925:18,24 926:18 927:8,25 940:7 954:2 960:2 963:21 Guardian's 896:21 guilty 969:23 H H 969:21 Hai 914:6 916:21 963:22 half 852:10 halfway 859:20 863:9 half-way 859:20 860:3 hall 905:20 929:4 Hamas 955:16 956:3 958:4,4 hand 888:9 959:17 977:5,14 977:17 handed 932:19 977:17 978:15 978:20 979:5 handled 909:14
913:7 915:11 916:21 handling 911:7 hands 851:7 930:2 932:15,21 953:2 hands-off 895:13 hand-in-hand 926:23 happen 964:3 happened 854:10 855:17 870:8 897:10 900:18 902:14 904:21 907:11,25 908:24,25 912:23 939:16 941:3 963:19 964:11 966:3 976:5 happening 849:15 912:25 happens 852:7 909:22 947:15 happy 849:4 harassing 884:2 harassment 882:18 885:5,12 898:17 hard 880:21 harmed 889:24 harshness 891:18 head 901:7 904:15 963:17 headed 859:14 871:4,20 927:12 heading 869:19 978:23 headings 875:15 headline 844:23 915:4 hear 870:4 874:23 875:19 927:18 heard 870:8 938:20 hears 844:23 hearsay 928:13,18 heavy 878:8 hedged 921:12 held 843:10,15,20 885:25 945:4 966:16 969:16 help 865:24 884:4 896:12 899:16 899:17 902:20 904:14 917:21 926:18 950:12 helped 894:18 helping 884:13 Hermitage 841:12 887:15,22
892:21 893:6,21 894:19 895:17 925:23 930:21 930:25 931:11 931:18 933:5 934:14 935:22 936:6,14 937:4 940:25 941:4,16 953:6 954:3,18 959:24 961:18 962:22 964:8 970:22 971:8,13 972:12 976:14 Hermitage's 876:16 901:10 940:22 952:14 hesitation 907:12 920:17 Hewitt 943:14,23 944:5 954:23,25 955:5 957:25 high 841:1 897:14 902:6,6,19 903:3 929:17 939:8 965:7 971:15 highly 867:23 868:11 901:3 913:16 921:10 921:18 922:4 929:13 936:5 943:7 hilt 884:14 896:24 930:6 Hirst 966:23 969:2,4,5,11,16 970:5 Hiss 944:15,21 945:12,13 946:5 946:12,12,15,19 952:4 historian 946:14 historical 873:2 944:17 945:17 history 893:18 928:20 945:9 hobby 927:25 hold 866:25 885:19 hole 857:12,19 964:12,24 home 888:18 897:15 974:24 975:11 Hon 845:3 honest 930:7 932:24 honestly 941:17 967:24 honesty 897:6 honour
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
16 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 7 [Page 989] 958:2 Jews 955:7 956:2 957:4,4,6,11,20 job 859:3 867:5 918:13,16 936:8 joint 969:17 jolly 899:20 Jonas 872:16 JONATHAN 841:20 journal 944:17 945:5,16,20 947:12 951:25 952:3 journalism 949:18 964:25 journalist 918:21 953:25 954:7,9 954:16 journalistic 913:2 929:22 963:20 964:7 journalists 891:17 judge 886:7 946:7 946:21 951:16 955:14,23,25 judges 905:16 judgment 888:5 889:18 890:14 890:23 945:15 946:21 958:10 966:23 974:9 judgments 890:21 judiciary 885:6 July 848:5 861:9 861:11,14,16 864:6 912:12 jump 863:2 968:3 jumping 863:5 946:16 956:9 June 852:12 853:15 870:4 junior 939:18 jurisdiction 876:15,16 879:5 881:3 950:12 jurisprudence 890:17,22 892:2 justice 841:1,2,6 842:6,12 848:16 854:14 855:2 858:16 859:17 859:19,21 864:2 864:5 865:18,24 866:3,7,16 867:12,15 871:8 874:19,22 875:2 878:22 879:16 881:5,9 882:5 882:16 884:25 887:10,12 889:7 889:9 892:16,20 893:4 894:22 899:2 903:23 907:22 916:4,7 917:25 918:3 927:9,15,19 931:22 933:17 938:22 940:12 941:19 942:22 943:14,23 944:10 948:20 949:4,11,20 950:2,22 951:25 953:16 954:24 955:4 957:6,15 957:24 958:7,18 960:9,25 963:11 963:24 964:5 971:23 972:14 972:17 973:21 974:14 975:25 976:22,25 977:3 977:19,23 978:3 978:8,10,14,19 978:25 979:4,6 979:12,23 980:3 Justices 969:20 justification 875:17 882:2 894:23 940:17 973:7 974:24 justified 896:23 930:6 972:15 975:15 justifies 974:10 justify 890:24 justifying 901:2 K Kabendera 928:9 Kaul 878:4,11,12 878:14 Kawango 931:13 931:14,19 932:3 932:5,17,18,19 Kawango's 931:15 keep 953:15 974:22,22 978:9 979:10 keeper 851:8 keeping 883:7 974:19 kept 846:14 849:12,13,14 978:10 Kern 888:14 889:4,13,15,23 890:9 key 896:18 920:4
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
920:9 infer 952:13 inference 887:23 888:12 921:2 957:19,21 inferences 887:23 952:6 information 873:23 889:5,11 889:20 941:23 948:5,14 953:11 957:9 958:15,17 964:22 966:19 977:16 informed 894:6 910:19 info@martenw... 841:17 infringed 892:5 Initiative 962:3 injunction 879:10 879:22 881:3,10 971:18,21 972:7 975:18,22 976:4 injure 973:9 974:5 974:12,23 injury 877:10 878:8 879:7,9 937:17,22 976:18 innocence 946:13 innocent 966:13 970:3 insertion 969:19 insisted 966:10,11 967:7 insistence 927:7 insisting 966:20 insists 976:12,15 instance 888:10 922:6 959:3 instructed 841:19 841:20 instructing 938:15 instruction 931:23 932:6 integrity 928:10 928:19 intelligence 944:18 945:9,18 945:25 946:5 951:23 intend 974:22 intended 926:19 955:11 intention 868:23 883:6 887:17 895:23 926:19 938:8 973:14
974:8,19 intentionally 845:3,10 868:14 intentions 887:21 Intercam 871:21 Interchem 844:5 844:7,13 847:5 848:7,9,21,22 848:22 849:18 852:14 854:3 855:15 857:2,16 858:4 859:8,14 859:22 860:7,14 862:10 865:2,6 866:4,7,18 867:9,10 interest 843:3 859:7 868:18 926:25 941:6,18 941:22,24 944:3 945:3,9,10,17 945:19,25 946:4 946:14,23 947:5 947:8,8,11,15 950:23 951:2,5 951:23 952:11 952:16,17,24 953:22 954:8,19 954:20 955:22 956:2 957:3,8 957:11,12,23 958:21 959:20 962:7,10,15 967:10,21 968:13 975:7 interested 941:24 947:13 952:25 953:11,13 958:3 interesting 931:5 953:22 interests 943:17 956:16 interfere 929:20 international 880:25 932:7 951:5 953:17 internet 936:4 950:24 952:4 956:14 962:21 Interpal 955:8,9 955:12 interpretation 865:14 interpreted 891:2 intervene 899:6 902:25 intervenes 927:5 intervening 902:20 930:3 interview 888:23 interviewed
954:2 intimidating 884:2 intimidation 882:18 898:22 899:11 invade 893:5 894:8 invaded 893:7 invent 971:13,16 invention 901:7 invest 850:22 866:19 invested 843:2 849:23 866:17 869:22 investigate 906:7 investigated 854:10 912:6 investigation 855:14,16 870:12 investigative 964:25 investing 873:4 investment 842:4 843:2,25,25 844:3 847:15,17 847:21,23,25 848:2,7,14 849:8,17 850:5 850:5,7,9,10,13 850:15,19,20 851:2,4 852:5 852:17 855:14 856:12 858:24 859:2,8,14,22 860:6,14,17 863:15 864:14 865:18 866:4,20 866:22,24,24,25 867:3,4,6,8 868:17 869:4,19 870:3,5,6,12 871:21 873:11 873:15 874:10 893:20 894:4,5 949:9 964:20 investments 847:24 851:3,21 859:4 investor 949:2 investors 872:4 893:5 894:7 941:19 952:25 953:2 963:20 964:7 invite 892:14 906:2 917:12 953:24 invited
867:7 involve 968:16 involved 851:16 851:17,24 852:2 852:22 854:9 856:7 884:11 891:9 893:23 894:7 895:12 908:11,13,14,21 908:22 951:15 involvement 883:9 involves 851:6 894:3 involving 883:9 892:7 893:24 IPBL 869:20 871:5 IPL 859:15 IPO 858:5 862:6 865:22 IPP 885:13,14,16 885:24 886:11 896:17 898:4 900:10 904:16 904:22 905:9 912:19 913:19 925:24,25 926:7 942:4,14,15,16 949:2,17,23 958:13 959:8 960:2,19 963:20 964:6,12,15,19 964:21,24 965:4 IPPL 872:4,25 873:4,19 IPP's 846:2 965:2 irrefutable 933:11 933:19 irrelevant 968:25 970:20 isolation 883:18 issue 847:5 852:9 879:4 894:14 900:5 902:15 955:22 956:5 issues 944:18 945:18 item 933:23 items 933:23 ITV 928:21,25 i.e 872:4 885:25 946:23 J J 879:3,16 Jameel 879:14 JAMES 841:20 January 892:18 912:12,12 Jewish 957:17
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
16 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 7 [Page 990] 871:25 lock 921:19 logical 968:24 logically 968:14 968:19 London 841:3,16 long 843:20 880:6 888:20,25 899:4 910:11,16 911:13 976:23 longer 906:11 976:21 977:9 longstanding 946:14 long-term 944:20 look 844:16,24 845:17 846:25 847:10 849:17 849:18 850:20 851:19 852:12 853:11 854:12 855:13 856:8,12 856:17 857:4,4 857:12 858:25 859:4,25 860:9 861:13,18,25 863:19 864:9,12 867:17 879:21 883:12 884:21 884:22 892:14 893:12 894:2,15 895:7,12,13,22 898:7,7 899:18 902:24 904:24 905:6 907:21 910:17 914:11 923:10 924:13 943:20,21 947:21,24 948:16 950:5 952:2,15 954:23 954:25 963:15 963:18 965:9 966:2 969:3 973:24 974:17 978:6,13 979:8 979:13 looked 856:4 859:6,7 915:6 936:11 looking 842:16 845:21 849:9 851:2 856:11 859:21 879:11 879:22,23 880:11 882:2,25 884:24 895:25 901:11 953:11 963:11 974:2 975:11,14 looks 869:7,9,16 877:6,11 881:18 886:5,21 888:13 898:20 908:8 913:14 922:13 935:19 937:2 939:24 947:17 951:11 959:19 965:12 974:25 loop 912:20 Lord 842:2,14 843:14 844:2,6 844:9,12,15,19 844:22 845:12 845:15,23 846:5 846:6,8,11,20 846:22,24 847:3 847:7,9,12,14 847:20 848:3,6 848:8,15,18,20 849:6,8,12,20 849:22,25 850:3 850:4,8,12,17 850:25 851:8,24 852:6,9,16,22 853:2,8,10,22 853:23 854:4,8 854:18,24 855:4 855:7,10,16,20 856:2,6,10 858:6,10,15,19 858:22 859:3,9 859:18 860:12 860:15,18,22 861:6,15,17,19 861:22 862:2,4 862:8,13,18 863:13,16,18,21 863:25 864:8,11 864:15,19,24 865:14,20,23 866:2,6,8,12,19 867:14 868:2,4 868:13,16,21,23 869:5,15,18 870:9,18,20 871:19,23 872:13,15,20,22 873:7,9,12,20 873:22,24 874:6 874:11,15,20,24 875:3 889:8 893:9 901:23 905:15 909:4,13 912:18 917:24 923:22 933:22 934:3,9 939:2 957:18 963:25 967:17 968:2,9 969:20 976:21
921:19,19 924:4 969:10 KGB 944:12,13 944:14,22 kick 851:15 kidnapped 888:16 Kikwete 893:19 Kilimanjaro 960:21 Kimambo 896:18 908:2,3,4,25 909:4,8,14 910:18,24 912:18 915:4,7 kind 874:9 878:9 906:9 Kingdom 878:5 950:21 Kipo 872:16 knew 854:9 865:12 866:9,10 867:9 886:13,19 896:21,22 900:24 905:8 907:8 926:14 929:10,13 934:8 935:19 938:14 940:5 942:18 know 849:4,11,15 851:25 853:4,22 854:24 855:17 855:20 856:6 858:19 866:8,14 866:15 869:13 870:8,16,19 872:4,6,16,17 872:21 873:23 875:10 882:23 886:12 887:11 891:25 905:21 918:6,17,19,21 918:21 919:2 924:17 928:7 939:3,10 942:17 942:19 947:18 947:21 953:15 958:9 963:10,13 966:15 976:14 knowingly 955:13 knowledge 874:5 887:22 939:9 known 852:3 880:6 929:25 959:22 967:12 knows 913:24 935:24 953:18 968:18 972:12 Kohler 872:16 Kulis 887:7 888:13,23
L L 945:13 lack 900:6 912:16 lady 928:22 laid 946:18 land 940:16 Lane 841:16 language 967:20 967:22 Lapse 915:15 large 884:16 905:7 largest 948:10 late 860:24 879:14 893:14 latitude 970:5,8 970:19 law 876:21 890:4 890:5,12 934:19 935:20 943:11 953:21 965:21 970:18 972:8 975:25 lawfully 894:6 lawsuit 931:6 933:21 934:24 936:23 937:21 lawsuits 931:25 lawyer 888:24 889:3 922:4 923:15 931:6,13 931:23 932:3,11 932:13,19 933:9 934:16,22,24 935:3 936:12 lawyers 932:22 934:4 951:14 968:20,21 learn 866:17 learned 893:25 894:9 898:2 900:3 906:5 918:15 939:18 942:6 943:22 946:7 947:3 951:16 955:25 958:12,20 961:16 962:19 963:13 965:13 970:6 learnt 919:21 924:19 lease 893:5,8 894:6,8 898:20 898:24 899:22 leave 854:14,19 854:19 879:2 892:16 936:9,18 977:5 leaving 976:13
left 862:3 886:6 left-hand 926:3 legal 878:19 885:8 890:10 898:22 899:5 921:14,17 922:16,22 923:3 923:4,9,12,23 923:25 932:20 934:4,7 935:9 935:13,16 940:14 972:25 legally 899:3 legitimate 956:2 legitimately 958:5 Lema 942:22,23 length 873:17 874:4 906:22,22 lengthy 940:17 letter 843:4,6 845:17,21 846:25 857:6 863:19,22 864:3 864:9,9,17 865:11 868:5,12 869:12 870:7 876:10,24 877:16 878:13 880:8,24 886:16 898:3,5,8,13,19 900:2,7,21 901:6 904:2,3,6 904:13 920:10 922:16 925:23 925:24 940:13 977:20 978:6,23 979:8 letterhead 846:12 855:8 letters 845:5 880:25 901:5 920:6,7,25 921:3 922:7,13 922:23 923:17 925:16 926:7,17 929:12,16 971:21 Let's 904:16 level 869:23 liability 869:24 971:24 liar 888:7,7 889:6 889:11,13,23 890:9 892:8,12 libel 881:15 888:21 889:21 889:25 891:6 955:7 966:16 967:5 969:24 970:2 972:25 973:4 974:10 libelous
949:18 libels 880:4 lie 853:22 854:17 896:2 900:25 972:22 lied 972:20,25 974:19 lien 951:13 lies 845:4 896:5 926:13 lieutenant 923:15 life 851:9,9 951:6 977:9 light 928:14 939:6 lightly 875:10 likes 875:11 limb 942:3 limit 962:23 968:6 limited 859:15 871:22 904:21 979:21 limits 891:8,21 line 851:18,19 882:22 885:22 896:15 901:17 909:24 911:6 917:19 921:14 921:20 923:22 924:10 928:8,24 930:15 933:15 933:18 934:2 935:4 955:10 lines 851:20 863:2 863:5,8 889:19 891:15 911:16 954:10 968:3 linked 882:8 Lipumba 913:17 913:19 Lipumba's 913:12 913:23 list 948:23 listen 903:4 listening 961:10 973:23 litigation 879:13 885:7 935:12 little 849:17 854:12 866:13 869:6 877:7 879:3,22 917:18 928:14 939:9 living 942:12 960:21 LJ 966:23 969:2,4 969:5,11,16 970:5 load 907:12 local 885:13 located 860:9
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
16 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 7 [Page 991] 960:19 971:14 975:3 meetings 910:5,10 910:15 916:10 member 853:5 858:24 873:15 959:23 961:2,12 members 958:2 960:20 membership 845:10 memo 919:8,11 memorable 897:21 memory 897:9 902:13 904:21 909:21 910:9 911:23 913:6 914:18,20 915:15 916:11 916:23 Mengi 841:9 842:3,4,6,10,12 842:15,21 843:3 844:23 852:17 859:23 865:4 868:18,20 869:3 870:5,21 872:12 872:14 873:5 874:19 878:21 882:9 883:9 884:2,5,6,10,17 885:10,17,23 886:9,18 891:11 893:7,24 894:3 894:20 895:8,18 896:6,11,19 897:16 899:13 899:17 900:7,18 901:2,5,7,25 902:17,23 903:8 903:18,24 904:13,23 905:5 907:8,9 913:8 913:12 917:21 918:6,13,16,17 918:20,20,24 919:2,4,16 920:6,8,24 922:8,14,17,23 923:16,23 924:15,16 925:20 926:11 926:12,18,23 927:12,23 928:14,25 930:15 931:20 931:24 932:2,6 932:8,13,19 934:21 935:7 936:5,25 937:3 937:20 940:3 943:9 949:17,23 950:5 952:21 953:4,4 954:3,4 954:11,13 958:22 959:3,22 960:4,16,17,24 961:5,6,8,12,14 962:5 964:19,23 972:19 978:20 Mengis 893:4 894:7 Mengi's 877:14 884:13 885:5 886:3 895:19 897:15 901:12 902:24 903:5 918:6 925:11,19 926:9 928:21 930:12 932:14 933:3,6 939:7 960:12 973:18 MENGI-PRICE 843:1 844:1 845:1 846:1 847:1 848:1 849:1 850:1 851:1 852:1 853:1 854:1 855:1 856:1 857:1 858:1 859:1 860:1 861:1 862:1 863:1 864:1 865:1 866:1 867:1 868:1 MENGI-RAMP... 869:1 870:1 871:1 872:1 873:1 874:1 mention 860:16 922:9 mentioned 847:21 865:22 876:11 878:11 904:23 mentioning 873:13 menu 842:2 merely 891:12 950:9 967:20 message 884:10 Mhaville 928:22 middle 844:25 845:3 852:12 857:12,24 862:5 910:3 912:2 966:24 967:17 Middleton 882:18 886:16 895:17
976:24 977:2,4 Lordship 863:24 875:10,12,14,19 875:20,22,25 876:6,8,8,22 877:2,18 878:13 879:19 880:5 882:3,25 883:10 884:21,23 885:3 886:12 887:5,8 887:9 888:5,13 889:15 891:25 892:9,10,14 895:2 897:7 898:6,11,14 899:13 901:8,15 901:16,17 903:10,17,19,21 904:10 905:11 905:15,24 906:2 906:20 907:23 912:3,17,19 913:9,13 914:7 916:25 917:13 918:4 919:11 921:10,25 923:10,20 924:13,21 925:21,22 926:2 926:21 927:2,10 927:17,24 928:3 928:5,17 929:3 929:6,8 930:18 930:22 931:7,10 931:16,20 932:4 932:10,23 933:8 933:14,16,25 937:5,14 938:20 940:24 942:9,20 944:8,11 945:15 947:20,23,24 948:16,19,25 949:3,6,8,9,16 949:18,24 950:17,18 951:10 952:14 953:24 955:5,10 955:20 958:11 959:11,12 960:6 960:10 961:18 961:24 962:24 963:15,25 964:4 965:22 966:24 970:11,25 972:10,19,20 973:2,11,12,14 973:19 974:2,4 974:6,9,16,20 975:14,16,18,20 975:21 976:6,8
976:10 977:17 978:5,5,9,16 979:2 Lordships 881:13 949:13 967:16 Lordship's 919:9 939:17 940:22 975:8,24 loss 871:6 lost 968:23 lot 909:23 917:11 926:13 928:8 930:13,17 943:8 961:5 975:13 lots 962:19 Lowe 968:10 Lowenthal 946:11 946:13,16 lower 857:18 889:19,22 Ltd's 927:8 Luhanga 906:20 910:20 911:4,8 911:25 912:14 919:22 Luhanga's 911:22 lunch 918:5 Lutheran 877:12 959:15,17,21,23 959:25 960:3,12 960:15,17,18,20 961:2,9 lying 883:6 886:23 887:13 887:16,25 888:4 925:10 930:10 975:13 M Mac 872:4,5,6,9 872:12 magazine 888:23 950:25 951:3,20 magistrate 907:22 main 899:21,21 904:14 931:10 maintained 925:19 932:13 Majira 961:7 Major 967:13 making 852:5 863:14 909:17 916:3 917:23 934:20 947:9 958:16 967:18 974:21 malice 933:5,7,20 933:22,24 934:13 970:23 971:3,6,7,8,10 971:11 972:14
973:22 malicious 976:9 man 874:13 888:7 897:6 902:6 918:23 969:22 managed 912:22 management 848:4,11 851:3 866:20,21,22 867:2,4 873:3 managing 901:4 915:21 919:6,17 919:18 920:6,8 921:2,15,16 922:17 Manji 930:15,16 930:19,20,25 931:6,12,13,18 931:19,23 932:2 932:5,11,18 933:9 936:14 937:7,15 938:6 938:13,16 943:8 Manji's 932:3,12 937:11 manner 915:12 March 876:9 900:8 marching 907:8 marked 944:8 Markets 849:18 855:13 856:4,6 856:7,11 869:9 870:11 Marten 841:15 match 933:7 material 951:18 956:6 958:21 964:15 970:10 970:21 972:20 materially 973:9 974:12 matter 878:22 879:17,20 890:8 891:20 894:14 899:2 903:15 920:11 921:24 923:5 929:17,23 946:14 955:15 962:13,22 965:21 968:5,8 968:12,14,17,24 969:14,25 973:19 974:9,25 matters 843:24 914:2 927:6 931:2 945:24 970:18 Mauggo 913:4,17 913:21 914:8,12
916:4 919:4,22 Mauggo's 913:11 914:4 916:17 918:5 mean 864:16 865:3,8 869:14 881:20 902:22 916:2 952:15 979:17 meaning 881:23 881:25 886:20 892:14,16 meanings 884:17 means 848:19 864:18,21 878:2 887:18 893:7 894:10 919:4 931:15 meant 848:21 849:8 858:15 886:25 926:8 mecum 977:8 media 853:5,6,7 853:25 854:23 855:2 882:16 884:18 885:14 885:16,24 886:11,14 889:5 889:10 891:13 898:4,18 899:24 904:16,22 913:2 927:25,25 936:8 942:4,14,15,16 949:2,17,23 953:4 958:13 959:8 960:2 962:3,4 963:20 964:6,12,15,17 964:19 965:4 972:21 973:24 979:21 mediate 940:4 mediator 903:7 939:6 940:2 Media's 964:24 medium 953:9 meet 901:24 meeting 866:22,25 866:25 867:8,11 867:11 882:10 883:4 885:22 886:9,15 897:3 897:13,15,18,21 900:13,15,18 902:2,5,11,19 903:23,25 904:7 904:9,21 910:18 914:22 915:18 916:2 929:11 939:7,14 959:9
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
16 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 7 [Page 992] 874:3 Nicol's 873:3 NICO's 844:4 847:25 871:3 Nigel 966:5,6,10 966:19 967:2,3 967:6 969:13 nil 852:15 Nipashe 906:21 906:23 907:19 920:4 925:18 926:18 939:19 940:7 964:12 nob 891:5 Nominees 906:13 nonsense 907:12 913:9 926:13,13 939:25 non-answer 920:18 non-existent 878:9 non-involvement 895:20 non-malicious 975:2,5 non-response 920:7 non-witness 919:7 normal 846:14 860:2 866:19 902:21,23 909:10,15,16,19 910:13 normally 846:9,12 848:10 881:15 905:14 907:17 909:22,24 Northern 960:20 961:10 noses 851:11 notable 912:2 notation 932:7 note 882:19 900:11 919:9 931:16 960:7,10 noted 912:19 Notes 841:15 notice 852:15 926:21 928:18 notified 888:15 noting 929:16 notion 884:9 929:17 notwithstanding 956:11 novel 967:2,2,4 November 841:4 936:11 943:6,9 980:4 number 871:10 875:15 876:11 877:24 892:23 892:24 893:10 948:2,4,10 949:5,7,12,21 950:3,5 951:8 951:11 972:18 numbered 869:9 numbers 950:8 nutshell 887:4 O O 841:23 oath 854:18 objective 964:24 968:16 obtain 943:2 948:5 obtainable 942:25 obtained 933:4 obtaining 850:23 obvious 893:10 901:14 962:8 obviously 842:7 876:23 881:25 883:4 889:3,24 897:3 952:15 occasion 855:5 945:4 968:7 969:20 occupy 875:16 October 856:13 856:18,22,23 872:25 odd 903:8 offence 965:4 offending 956:6 office 906:3 925:2 925:3 926:11 officer 869:12 885:24 officers 944:12 offices 896:21 official 919:14 Oh 932:22 942:6 Oh,no 939:16 okay 842:14 850:19 861:25 864:24 894:15 915:18 old 875:21 923:16 924:24 926:15 933:6 942:25 omission 850:2 905:2 922:10 omits 899:25 omitted 904:8 once 905:19 912:7 922:18,19 977:8 ones 875:15,17
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
897:3,13,17,19 897:25 898:12 898:16 900:5,17 900:24 901:10 901:21 902:18 903:15,16 904:24 912:5 917:10 922:14 929:12 939:15 939:19,21,22 940:3,8,15 941:23 942:8,13 954:2,18 963:23 964:9,10,14 971:13,25 972:11 976:13 Middletons 918:12 920:5 923:18 924:2 925:12,16 926:20 930:16 935:24 936:24 941:10 958:22 959:5 962:16 963:11 965:8 973:17 Middleton's 882:13 898:6,9 900:7 925:16 926:17 943:3 964:13 mid-2009 869:8 mild 936:25 mildly 900:20 million 849:23 869:22 895:11 millions 941:20 953:14 Milly 872:14 mind 856:9 946:10 mine 856:2 871:8 minimal 952:18 mining 872:11 minute 900:2 minutes 856:5,8 900:2 904:9 928:21 mirror 950:5 mirrors 905:20 929:4 mislead 925:4 misleading 862:16 862:22 867:23 868:11 906:2 921:10,18,24 922:5 misled 926:12 misquote 928:3 missing 899:8 mistake
908:18 966:6 977:22 mistakes 979:6 mode 956:14 Mohan 878:4 moment 870:24 880:12 881:11 881:22 882:5 884:15,22 908:18 909:13 917:24 923:22 943:15 947:23 976:22 Monday 979:25 980:2,4 money 844:4 860:13 930:17 936:14 943:8 951:2 955:16 month 852:7 901:6 938:7 months 855:24 856:25 876:23 940:10 moon 902:25 morals 963:4 morning 842:2 887:12 908:3 910:18 938:20 947:20 morning's 938:24 Mosha 845:22 846:9 847:2 852:24 853:4,4 853:20,23 857:9 861:25 864:3 865:5 Mosher 977:22 979:20 Moshi 860:10 871:25 886:25 896:18 912:20 motivation 850:22 880:24 motives 887:21 move 967:16 MP 889:2 Mshana 919:6 Mshana's 919:11 MTanzania 913:16 Muchoki 916:20 916:25 917:4,15 muddled 911:19 municipality 872:2 murderous 907:20 914:6,10 964:8 Mwananchi
913:16 N N 841:23 name 865:22 871:7 878:21 889:24 918:20 925:20 942:21 960:5 named 843:13 927:12 969:24 narrowly 891:2 nation 957:5 National 842:4 843:25 856:12 960:14 naturally 895:2 nature 855:17 951:20 952:18 953:10 near 857:4 860:6 889:22 890:4 907:3 920:20 935:9 964:20 Nearly 860:3 necessary 873:3 889:6,12 940:20 941:2 953:8 958:15 966:18 967:20,25 968:12 970:10 necessity 891:3 970:13 need 851:3 861:8 871:7 883:12 888:2 891:4 892:13 919:10 927:16 930:7 939:2 940:19 941:10 942:9 961:25 966:2 969:8 971:20 979:19 needed 877:20 918:17 923:23 930:7 955:18 needs 958:16 neither 904:8 959:10 neutral 903:7 939:6 940:2 never 842:20 853:23,23 854:9 854:10,18,18,19 854:20,21,23,25 854:25,25 870:17 874:11 883:6 887:17 895:11,23 912:5 912:7,22 973:13 nevertheless
876:3 new 853:14 866:20 926:6 944:21 newish 887:11 news 913:15 915:22 936:8,19 962:9 965:7 newspaper 900:9 913:20 920:9 930:2 939:12 962:10,12,14 964:12,17,21 966:15,17 newspapers 884:7 884:13 887:2 894:18 895:12 895:20 896:17 897:18 899:9,19 900:10,12 905:9 912:13 913:15 927:22 929:14 954:14 959:4 961:14 973:17 newsworthy 908:7 Ngolo 933:8 Ngoya 939:15,19 939:23 940:8 Nguma 905:23 920:19,21 922:8 923:5,14 924:17 924:22 925:4,6 925:10 926:5,8 926:12,23,24 Nguma's 905:23 906:3 920:14 921:9,20 922:12 923:3,8 925:6 925:12 926:2 niceties 970:18 NICO 843:2 844:7 844:14 845:22 847:24 848:5 849:19 850:8,17 850:22,25 851:2 851:3,13,17 852:4,19,23,25 856:3,16 857:13 857:21,25 858:4 858:10,12,25 860:13,19 861:10 862:9,11 862:18 863:17 865:2,17,19,20 866:3,17,21 867:2,4,8,10 869:13 870:10 871:8,12 NICOL 873:6,16
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
16 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 7 [Page 993] 953:17 people 851:9 866:12,15 876:23 879:18 879:18 883:15 890:24 896:20 928:2 941:2 943:2 947:10,12 947:18,22 950:12 951:15 952:13,19,23 953:7,9,12 957:19,21,22,25 958:3,21 963:2 963:4 964:16 970:5,14 perfect 892:11 perfectly 865:4 883:2 886:13 896:21 913:21 929:13 940:6 957:13 962:7 965:9 performance 863:12 873:2 period 944:19 948:7 persecuted 961:7 961:8 person 873:21 878:20 919:5 928:18 943:25 952:9 965:24 967:18 969:24 personal 889:17 personally 886:16 893:7 899:15 900:22 persons 941:17,24 943:16 944:2,2 952:10 persuade 879:16 persuaded 846:21 Pharma 844:5,7 844:13 848:7,21 848:22 852:14 854:3 855:15 857:2 pharmaceutical 859:8,15,23 860:7 pharmaceuticals 871:21,24 photocopy 978:19 978:22 photograph 966:8 967:3 phrase 904:12 physical 898:22 899:11 pick 883:17 picked 963:19 964:3 picture 857:9 906:16,16 pictures 853:17 piece 869:25 879:13 901:16 914:4 922:20 971:8 pillar 942:12 place 884:22 893:13 903:17 903:19 904:18 905:24 906:14 927:3 931:25 963:11 placed 917:17 938:18 plagiarised 967:4 plagiarism 969:23 plagiarist 966:5,7 966:12,14 plain 923:24 942:14 plainly 916:10 922:3 924:15 925:10 954:8 plaint 932:15 plaintiff 967:15 969:4 planning 858:8,8 plans 858:4 plaudits 928:9 play 941:15 954:9 playing 902:18 pleaded 933:13 pleading 884:17 884:23,25 925:17 971:6,24 please 842:7 852:22 861:12 864:9 868:9 869:16,24 871:14 924:10 931:20 956:23 978:14 979:15 plight 941:17 pocket 896:19 Pocock 882:10 885:22 886:15 897:2 898:21 899:12 902:10 903:25 904:3,6 904:12,19 905:2 929:11 939:14 940:13 959:9 971:25 Pocock's 895:6 898:2,5,8,13,18
883:25 961:24 974:6 oneself 967:11 one-sided 918:22 918:22 one-sidedness 912:3 921:6 one-way 868:9 online 951:25 onus 943:15 952:9 on-going 862:11 open 898:11 926:6 opening 882:6 openly 949:24 opens 883:4 921:19 operations 871:25 opinion 851:18 890:10 933:22 934:25 970:15 972:6 opportunity 935:6 954:3,11,14 959:4 oppression 961:14 oppressive 878:25 oral 875:18 916:23 923:13 orally 882:20 order 844:11 860:13 881:5 907:9 938:10 970:10 ordered 965:7 orderly 977:13 orders 921:7 ordinary 871:18 915:11 968:18 970:14 organisation 885:13 955:8,17 organisations 955:13 original 846:3 872:4 873:14,18 966:18 978:6,17 978:23 979:3 originals 845:17 845:19 846:2 originate 975:25 other's 851:11 ought 882:22 954:23 959:11 978:17 979:2 ousting 882:17 outlets 945:22 outline 879:8 outset 880:10 outside 943:16 944:2 952:10
960:21 968:15 oversee 847:25 850:25 overstep 891:21 over-valued 851:22,25 owned 885:16 900:10 owns 959:3 o'clock 913:5 917:25 P P 841:23 page 842:16,17,17 842:25 844:18 844:24 847:10 849:21 850:3,21 851:19,20 852:3 852:12,12 853:15 857:4 859:10,12,18 860:2,3,6 861:13,25 862:5 862:9,9 863:3 864:13 867:20 869:16,17,19,24 870:2,21 871:3 871:4,14,15,16 871:20 872:23 876:7 877:2,22 877:23 881:25 882:3 885:3,4,7 885:7,10,21,21 885:21 886:9 888:2,13 889:2 889:8 890:4 894:24 898:9 900:8 901:16,17 905:7 908:8,10 909:12 910:3 911:6,15,16,20 912:2,17 914:7 914:8 915:3 916:18 917:3,15 919:8,16 920:15 920:21 921:11 921:14 923:10 923:20,22 924:9 924:11,17 925:22 928:15 931:9,12,14,17 932:4,24 933:2 933:15,16 936:2 936:3 937:9 938:21,22 939:5 941:8 945:23 948:7,14,17,25 949:8,17,23,23 949:25 950:4,7 950:19 952:22
955:11 959:13 960:8,9,13,17 960:19 961:3,6 963:20,22,23 964:3,6,7,9,9,18 964:20,20 965:6 966:23,24 967:6 967:8,17 968:3 969:3,10,15,15 973:4 pages 859:21 861:9 869:8 883:20 909:23 917:2,12 922:24 931:8,16 948:4 956:9 963:16 paid 852:13 855:24 930:17 933:5 935:22 937:7 943:8 948:17 painful 874:17 paragraph 842:18 847:4 850:4 857:13,18,21,24 863:7,8,9 864:12 867:20 870:2,3 877:18 877:22,23 878:14 885:15 888:13,21 889:15,18 890:3 890:3,11,12,13 890:16,19,25 891:5,7,16 892:3 898:10,12 898:15 899:14 902:16 910:17 911:20 914:9 922:15,19,19 928:5 929:3 930:14 940:23 943:13,19,24 945:15,19 946:9 946:16,21 947:25 948:12 950:7 951:16 952:2,8 955:9 955:14,21,23 956:5 959:21,23 960:7,11 962:2 962:18 964:21 965:12 970:15 971:20 paragraphs 907:16 946:7,8 953:24 970:17 parallel 934:10 937:12 pardon 862:14
936:10 Park 953:8 parliament 888:15 889:4 part 864:20 872:24 875:9 877:8 884:16 891:19 900:6 906:10 913:13 916:17 949:15 956:2 962:17 963:13 965:24 968:17 973:21 participation 862:10 particular 859:7 885:11 890:20 907:18 910:9 930:9 935:11,12 944:2 952:3,23 957:11,22 967:9 968:13,13 particularly 884:19 902:5,13 902:18 906:24 912:6,10 919:10 929:23 946:8 947:17 962:4 968:9 975:11 particulars 949:5 949:12,21 950:3 950:6 parties 970:4 partly 906:17 parts 943:17 963:18 970:12 party 868:4 873:8 874:9 896:14 917:19 924:15 928:8,24 965:19 969:9,11,12 pass 968:21 passage 971:4 passages 940:22 940:24 passed 848:8 910:8 914:22 password 957:16 pause 864:24 876:23 917:24 933:15 971:23 978:4 979:16 pausing 891:10 pay 882:12 901:23 901:24 971:25 973:20 paying 878:17 937:11 975:4,10 payment 870:6 peculiarity 902:16 pending
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
16 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 7 [Page 994] 905:6 972:21 973:19 974:8,18 promised 886:9 900:16 973:12 974:17 promises 882:9 883:3,5,7 886:10,23 887:17 972:24 974:21 proper 881:10 882:24 951:5 954:10,13 properly 912:6 962:12 property 899:3 966:7,10,15,19 967:7 969:14 proportionate 945:14 956:7,15 proposal 850:5 866:19 870:13 propose 859:4 proposed 848:3 979:18 proposing 927:17 proposition 862:19 propositions 894:25 896:25 905:4,5 proprietor 891:14 928:25 929:21 930:3 proprietorial 930:2 prosecutor 888:16 prospectors 859:5 prospectus 856:12 856:20 858:25 871:2,3 protect 947:9 967:20 protected 945:10 945:11 956:16 967:22 protection 889:17 968:5,13,23 protest 842:25 868:17 protesting 946:13 prove 877:8 889:6 889:11,13 890:23 952:12 958:12 proved 876:13 958:23 973:8,8 974:4,24 provide 867:2 953:11 provider 964:22 providing 887:23 proving 876:20 provocation 891:18,24 PST 915:4 public 845:13 858:13 860:13 891:8,12,15,16 891:19 892:7 951:6 954:8 publication 876:14 877:4,7 877:9,20 878:8 883:14 919:12 945:6,7,10,20 947:6,9 952:4 952:11 955:6 956:13,14 959:16 962:12 964:14 966:21 976:9,17,18 publications 858:10 860:18 862:18 876:25 877:5 881:4 882:8,22 885:24 886:11,22 920:4 927:8 937:22 955:18 965:19 publicise 941:17 published 888:23 900:10,12 914:20 917:8,9 917:16 921:7 944:19,24 945:4 945:21 954:4 966:4,8 967:14 968:11,18 970:22 publishees 947:12 publisher 888:11 889:16 890:14 944:16 947:8 publishing 954:17 969:9 pull 858:12 pulled 932:8 punch 857:12,19 964:12,24 purchase 844:10 852:13 purporting 899:25 purports 847:10 purpose 867:3 900:2 purposes 878:23 967:25 969:15 972:16 pursue
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
904:6 point 865:7 875:20 878:24 881:25 884:4 886:8 895:21 896:7 899:21,21 901:3,14 903:12 903:14 904:10 904:11,11,14 905:3 911:25 923:14 925:15 926:2,7,21 943:13 955:17 956:2 963:6 965:13,18 972:11,12 977:18 979:15 979:23 pointed 931:8 952:7 pointless 900:25 points 930:12 970:9 poke 851:10 Poland 887:7 890:12 police 884:3 885:6 894:17 953:3 policy 913:3 941:20 Polish 888:15 889:19,25 890:3 890:5,11 politely 899:10 politician 890:6 891:11 politicians 941:12 portfolio 848:2 893:11 position 857:14,25 877:6 879:10 880:13 881:18 884:12,13 886:3 886:5 892:6 895:4,25 898:25 905:14 929:4 942:11 961:15 969:18 976:12 976:19 positive 895:16,16 possibilities 932:16,16 possible 854:7 898:25 903:8 928:11 933:4,20 possibly 906:22 907:3 918:9 930:22 937:16 939:11 956:18 970:21 972:22
975:19 976:10 post 942:12 posted 933:9,11 949:7,22 posting 853:14 950:24 postings 936:11 948:15 950:13 posts 948:22 pounds 941:21 power 889:3,10 889:23 powerful 942:4 964:21 practice 913:2 945:8 951:22 praise 914:2 pre 876:7 precise 916:24 precisely 917:5 922:23 958:6 979:22 preferential 927:8 premier 964:22 preparation 905:12 preparations 862:6 prepared 841:24 895:8,14 905:22 presence 876:16 971:7 present 878:22 891:20 947:17 957:13,20 967:9 presented 929:5 962:6 preserve 938:10 preserved 876:17 President 893:19 894:6 919:12,15 press 843:10,15 843:20,21 844:21 891:16 928:21 933:9,11 935:21 936:10 943:6 pressed 907:14 938:15 pressing 880:21 891:4 pressure 936:24 presumably 920:12 958:7 presume 883:21 957:15 presumed 868:16 presumption 880:17 pretty 855:14
879:24 893:9 896:16 909:20 912:14 918:19 928:23 941:4 951:11 959:25 prevent 930:2 price 841:20 842:2,9,11,15 848:19 849:2 852:14 854:22 855:5 856:20,23 858:18 859:17 859:18,20,22 864:3,6 867:15 867:16 869:25 871:9 874:7,22 874:24 875:2,3 878:22 879:15 879:19 881:8,13 882:15,25 885:2 887:11,13 889:8 889:10 892:19 892:23,25 893:9 894:23 903:23 904:5 907:23 916:6,9 918:3,4 927:10,17,20 931:23 933:18 939:2 942:23 943:21 944:11 948:21 949:5,12 949:21 950:3 951:10 952:2 955:2,5 956:24 957:7,18 958:6 958:9,19 960:10 961:3 963:24,25 964:6 972:10,16 972:18 974:2,16 976:3,23,24 977:12 979:9,13 979:17 Price's 858:16 977:10 prime 893:11 913:10 principal 875:5 principle 929:18 929:18,25 principled 874:13 principles 842:21 851:12,13,16,18 864:19,20 print 889:12 932:6 printed 931:15 prints 964:15 private 859:15 860:9 871:24 privilege 922:18
932:20 935:10 940:20 941:6,8 941:22 942:2,5 943:12 945:2,5 945:10 946:22 946:24 947:5 950:23 952:17 954:8,17,19,21 955:17,20,22 956:8,12 958:10 958:13,14,17,19 959:2,7,12 962:13,15 965:15,17,24 966:17,20 968:7 968:15 969:2 970:3,9 974:25 975:2,5,6 privileged 943:12 975:15 privy 973:15 probably 859:25 864:3 869:5 875:16 884:22 887:4,8 892:13 901:16 904:14 913:4 950:16 problem 868:19 899:23 952:7,7 problems 897:20 941:9 procedure 846:13 846:16 866:19 proceeded 852:4 proceedings 878:19 890:2 934:11 937:12 937:13 969:12 969:12,12,14 process 848:10 851:23 884:11 processor 907:15 produce 976:16 produced 846:17 846:18 863:20 904:9 produces 914:3 professional 932:20 935:10 945:17 951:19 professionalism 912:16 Professor 913:12 913:17,18,23 project 866:20 projects 848:3 prominent 891:13 961:2,12 promise 895:21 896:2 901:22
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
16 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 7 [Page 995] 938:20 records 955:14 recounting 897:11 recounts 907:20 recourse 891:17 recovering 975:18 rectify 930:3 recurs 892:2 redress 925:17 reduce 956:4 reducing 937:16 refer 864:9 870:7 875:12 941:9 reference 845:13 850:6,15 855:18 855:22 856:10 870:14 871:5 873:17 878:12 878:13 892:8 899:9 900:6 902:10 913:10 919:8 920:14,20 922:24 923:9 924:17 925:5,9 925:21 932:23 937:8 960:4 970:16 971:19 975:23 references 912:17 916:25 940:23 960:11,13 referred 844:3 909:11 911:17 915:2 referring 944:4 956:21 refers 862:5 900:9 reflect 935:12 refused 867:11 regard 890:8 925:5 956:15 967:23 973:10 974:5,12,23 regarding 898:4 regards 879:23 891:21 912:20 959:21 962:2 970:23 971:21 975:8 Reginald 841:9 842:10 883:16 884:5,6,10 885:10,16,17 893:24 894:3,16 894:18,20 897:16 913:8 918:6 922:17 923:23 924:15 924:16 926:12 927:23 949:17 949:23 950:4 952:21 953:4 954:3 964:19,22 region 960:21 register 898:24 899:3 940:16 registration 898:20 899:22 reiterates 891:7 reject 924:21 related 873:14,21 922:7 relating 890:6 938:16 relation 874:9 903:24 907:9,11 912:21 958:19 960:12 965:2 973:19 relationship 842:20 919:20 946:10 relatively 936:25 952:18 release 933:10,11 936:10 965:8 releases 935:21 943:7 relevance 885:16 968:17 relevant 878:24 889:2 906:23 945:14 968:14 968:20 970:12 reliability 944:21 reliance 903:17,19 905:24 938:18 relief 972:23 religion 957:5 rely 906:11 remained 897:23 remaining 973:10 974:6,13,15 remains 875:8 919:13 remarkable 850:2 877:22 880:13 895:5,18 906:25 916:19 922:10 922:20 928:20 966:25 remedy 881:10,11 971:23 remember 843:10 858:20 859:3 861:19 865:21 865:21,25 866:16 867:13 867:14 869:5 870:9 876:9,22
947:9 push 881:21 put 844:17 845:16 848:25 853:5 856:13 858:17 865:11 867:18 874:7 880:3 892:21 893:6 895:16 898:17 900:20,21 905:17 912:14 918:4 928:16 934:2,3,8,12,14 934:15,17 938:22 942:10 943:9 944:21 954:14 957:9 960:24 961:4 971:12 977:8 puts 904:10 979:14 putting 860:20 928:15 957:24 961:5 972:19 put-up 918:13,16 Q QC 841:19,20 qualified 850:24 941:8 945:2,5 qualify 968:22 Quality 841:15,16 quantum 937:16 938:10 quarter 874:23 QUEEN'S 841:1 question 848:13 848:16 854:4 855:7,9,11 858:16,18 875:21 880:15 883:4 887:19 900:23 906:19 907:18 918:11 918:15 919:16 919:25 922:4 924:5 933:12,18 934:2,2,11,12 935:5,10,12,13 951:17 956:13 958:10 965:16 969:7 questioned 944:21 questions 869:3 917:11 quia 976:4,7 quickly 883:23 887:9 927:4 947:21 quiet 849:13 quite 843:15
875:10 877:18 878:20 881:13 883:25 884:6,16 886:3,17,25 887:9 888:25 892:12 893:9,12 893:14,14 896:9 896:14,17 897:8 897:19 899:4,8 899:18 900:13 900:17 901:2,6 904:12,20,24,25 906:15 912:18 914:4 917:14 918:20 922:25 923:11 927:4 928:8 930:5,13 930:24 932:2,25 943:3 947:14 950:13 954:20 956:19 959:22 961:13 965:11 974:25 quotation 943:18 quote 889:22 921:21 922:14 927:24 938:11 963:21 970:17 quoted 877:24 quotes 946:7 967:16 969:4 quoting 845:8 889:3 R R 841:23 racist 913:20 raise 858:25 900:5 918:11 raised 843:24 920:11 raising 858:13 860:13 Rampton 841:19 856:19,21 869:2 871:13 874:18 882:5,6,19 892:16,24 893:2 895:15 938:24 943:20 956:9,11 956:18,23 960:24 962:24 972:5 977:4,20 977:24 978:2,5 978:9,12,15,21 979:2,5,10,13 979:22,24,25 980:2 Rampton's 893:11 rapidly 977:15 rational 917:22
reach 929:6,8 968:7 reaches 919:24 read 845:6,8 852:3 864:22,23 871:15 872:23 878:21 879:4,17 883:13,18,18,19 883:20 900:13 908:12,20 909:6 910:21 911:18 911:18 924:19 927:16 939:12 939:13 943:17 944:3 945:8 946:2,4 951:17 951:21,22 956:20 961:22 961:24 963:15 964:16 969:18 969:21,23 977:13 reader 886:6 887:24 893:16 893:17 894:11 readers 945:16 951:19 readership 945:6 945:21 reading 883:23 961:25 reads 845:10 847:5 849:23 852:15 859:16 860:10 863:11 864:14 869:23 870:3,13 873:2 873:15 886:10 891:22 892:5 916:25 917:12 919:13 945:25 946:17 952:3 956:14,20,24 real 851:9 875:21 877:3,21 878:23 879:8 880:14,18 924:11 realised 848:23 reality 946:3 really 868:19 875:13 876:12 877:13 878:15 879:13 880:13 880:24 881:16 882:8 886:22 887:4,20 896:19 906:9,16,19 907:17 909:24 911:20 916:2 917:13,23
919:25 920:4 921:19 927:21 929:5,19 936:23 937:2 939:9 942:11 947:4,21 958:24 959:13 962:17 963:18 968:12 974:5 reason 849:13 855:11 858:22 858:23 860:23 860:24,25 863:18 865:16 880:19 887:14 887:15 897:11 897:22 905:18 908:7 924:11 928:19 934:6,7 934:9,13,17,20 935:3,15 937:10 938:5 953:2 957:23 971:16 971:17 973:7 975:20 reasonable 956:7 956:15 957:19 957:21 967:24 968:5 reasonably 967:20 reasons 852:3 938:13 rebut 843:17,21 rebutted 843:16 recall 897:8 904:23 907:24 921:25 926:2 927:24 930:18 930:22 937:15 947:19 961:18 RECALLED 842:10 recalling 897:7 recalls 927:10 receive 855:7 941:25 957:12 received 852:14 860:22 863:16 865:17 868:5 926:7 934:7 receivership 844:13 recipients 957:12 recognise 887:24 970:7 recognised 967:10 recognises 970:14 recollection 904:4 916:12,19 record 898:3
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
16 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 7 [Page 996] Sakina 919:8,12 928:13 Salaam 887:3 912:24 Sarah 841:12 898:23 satisfied 847:13 956:20 969:19 975:19 976:8,10 save 844:11 saw 897:17 saying 844:10 862:21 865:12 866:12 881:17 882:20 893:20 894:19,21 900:16 904:23 911:11 934:4 951:3 952:15 968:21 977:21 says 850:3,14,18 850:21 857:4,13 862:13 864:17 869:22 870:10 871:8,24 879:21 880:4 887:16 889:13 890:19 893:21 894:2 895:15 898:16 898:21 907:25 908:19 913:7 917:5,5,6 920:19,21 923:11 924:19 925:4 928:14 931:20 937:25 939:13,14 943:14 946:9 951:16 955:23 957:6 962:19 964:14 969:17 971:10 973:3 979:17,17 scenario 918:19 scope 943:16 944:2 952:10 scraping 961:17 961:19 scream 903:2 screwed 932:8 script 906:18 911:24 916:13 916:16 918:8 search 942:25 948:13 952:22 second 842:24 847:4 868:3 895:3 900:6 903:14 905:4 942:3 945:16 946:22 949:23 949:25 seconds 915:14,16 secretariat 866:21 867:2,3 secretary 926:3 section 859:14 871:4,20 875:21 876:6 881:23 888:2 906:23,24 927:4 930:11 937:23,24 938:4 938:19 940:17 950:17 959:12 973:2 sections 875:17 Securities 869:7 869:10 870:11 security 849:18 855:13 856:4 951:2 see 842:18 845:2 845:20 851:9,10 853:15 856:18 857:13,14,18 858:2,17 859:7 860:2,11 861:3 861:8,13,22,23 862:12,15 863:2 863:5,6,9,10 867:19 868:15 871:22 872:12 879:11 881:13 881:18 882:12 883:10 886:17 888:10 893:9 896:6 899:2,5,6 899:7,12 903:19 907:21 917:10 925:7 927:20 931:17,21 940:12 949:9,24 950:24 954:7 965:10 972:3 978:6,25 979:17 seeing 974:4 seek 894:25 896:25 899:15 seen 913:10 915:5 933:8 937:5 940:14 955:21 978:12 sees 875:14,20 877:11,18 878:11 885:3,8 887:5 889:15,18 891:5 892:3 893:19 899:13 899:21 902:9 908:8 909:23
879:11 895:15 901:16 904:22 905:15 906:21 907:10,19 910:4 910:11,14,16,19 910:21,22,25 911:3,5,7,9,10 911:12 912:3 913:13 914:12 914:13,15,23,25 915:5,6,9,12,17 915:18 918:9 919:11 925:22 928:4 931:10 940:25 942:21 remembered 897:12,22 900:18 915:14 915:16 remembering 916:10 remembers 907:25 910:22 917:4 remind 842:15 843:9 872:25 reminder 900:14 repeat 848:13 875:7 repeated 895:20 912:10,11,11,11 940:10 965:5 repeating 975:12 975:19 repetition 882:7 reply 920:20,22 920:24 921:3 922:7 926:16 929:16 945:3,11 945:14 946:24 954:12,16 958:18 959:20 970:2,8 report 849:19 850:3 851:21 861:4,7,18 862:13 867:5,6 869:7 912:22 913:25 914:3 960:2,14 965:4 reported 891:14 912:8,9 939:19 965:7,8 reporter 913:22 913:24 916:21 reporting 912:8 913:11 reports 940:7 represent 977:7 representative
960:23 represented 960:20 representing 888:24 reproduces 964:8 reputation 889:21 891:22 897:6 933:7 937:17,22 973:9 974:5,12 974:23 require 923:4,9 required 849:24 850:6,15 851:16 891:21 923:3 970:19 requires 868:2 896:8 research 944:13 researched 962:12 resident 865:23 914:6 916:22 963:22 resides 878:4 resign 846:19 867:24 868:2,6 868:10 resignation 842:4 843:4,6,9 845:17 846:20 849:5 863:19,22 864:13,25 865:5 868:5,6,7,12 resigned 842:25 845:14 849:4 864:7 867:21 868:3,16 928:14 resolution 847:11 848:8,12 849:7 851:14 854:13 855:6,18 856:9 856:25 858:11 858:21,21 860:20,22,23 862:17,22 865:13 resolve 898:25 903:8 resolved 860:17 865:6,12 904:17 resource 952:20 respect 865:14 891:22 899:15 902:7,19 905:25 954:6 964:25 968:24 972:20 973:4 respectful 963:9 976:20 respectfully
881:14 928:9 941:13 958:11 962:7 respond 901:5,5 920:5,10,10,16 942:10 943:4 963:6 970:10 responded 844:16 962:22 responding 942:3 942:7 962:23 963:3,14 970:6 response 846:25 903:6,6 925:7 926:20 941:21 946:8 947:16 954:21 962:20 963:8,10 964:10 965:11,15,16,17 965:24 967:14 970:20 975:7 responses 970:3 977:11 responsibilities 842:22 responsibility 848:9 868:22 responsible 851:5 860:18 885:25 920:9 958:13,23 rest 885:15 886:5 restrain 881:4 restricted 967:19 restrictions 891:3 restructuring 862:11 rests 943:24 result 935:16 resulting 877:10 878:19 retail 945:21 return 842:6 revamp 849:24 reveals 965:2 reverting 918:4 review 850:23 851:2 Reynolds 946:24 954:7,10,17 962:13 RE-EXAMINA... 869:2 rhetoric 893:22 RICHARD 841:19 rid 860:17 riddled 894:13,14 right 843:18 846:19 847:16 849:16 850:12
859:25 860:25 861:10 862:3,5 862:21 868:21 870:23,23 871:10 880:13 881:5 882:25 883:17 890:15 894:22 896:23 907:23 909:5 913:24 926:22 926:24 930:6 936:4 940:5 941:14 947:7 953:6,20 956:10 956:10,10,11 957:18 962:11 964:6 972:18 979:4 rightly 907:19 rights 887:7 888:23 889:17 890:19,22 891:22 right-hand 856:14 867:19 871:9 rise 941:25 risk 873:4 969:24 RM5 931:9 role 891:16 roles 883:25 884:2 894:16 Roman 859:18 860:2 rooftops 953:19 room 925:3 Rostam 843:13,20 844:23 845:3 rough 917:6 roughly 920:12 round 938:3 975:12,14 route 929:9 972:25 routine 921:21,23 row 853:17,20 Royal 841:2 rule 876:17 956:12 ruling 945:4 run 876:19 885:17 888:18 running 884:7 885:14 887:2 runs 922:24 rust 888:7 S S 841:23 Saba 931:14 safely 903:18 saga 946:15
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
16 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 7 [Page 997] 959:23 960:16 special 880:19 893:2 907:6,7 907:10 952:17 specialist 944:17 945:5,6,16,20 945:21 947:12 948:21 specialists 951:19 specific 936:20 speech 913:12 977:25 spend 951:2 spending 951:5 spent 879:4 961:5 spoke 910:18,23 917:15 spurt 876:12 squarely 955:11 staff 846:18 898:23 912:23 964:13 stage 866:2 924:7 956:20 stages 865:20 stake 866:7,8 stand 879:19 882:23 919:14 934:9 953:8 976:15 start 874:13 890:16 894:24 944:6 966:8 977:4,25 started 876:9 927:13 942:7 starting 842:17 875:20 881:17 881:25,25 890:2 897:2 955:21 startling 922:12 starts 857:21,25 876:6 881:15 883:23 885:3 901:17 910:3 931:9 933:15 941:8 963:7 966:23 state 902:2,5 stated 885:23 886:3,4,4 statement 867:16 877:23 893:10 898:10 902:11 904:20 907:13 907:24 910:17 913:11 914:9 915:2 916:19,24 921:21 922:9,10 923:12 939:13 948:6,12 959:24 967:11 statements 889:20 890:21 891:25 892:4 905:13,22 909:11 924:19 967:15 states 948:11 963:23 964:10 stating 889:23 statistics 950:10 staunch 885:20 stay 846:21 849:16 868:9 971:5 stayed 847:15,17 942:25 staying 849:13 steal 893:5 894:8 Stenograph/Sho... 841:15 step 935:11,12 stepped 864:6 steps 868:8 896:22 929:21 956:3 sticking 896:14 sting 972:24 stink 851:15 stinks 852:17 854:7 stole 893:8 stolen 932:17 stone 960:16 stood 894:9 stop 880:3 882:10 886:9 896:23 898:17 899:20 900:15 972:21 973:12,25 975:9 stopping 975:3 stories 907:3,6,17 911:8 912:3 913:7,9 917:20 919:12,15 921:6 story 907:18,19 908:9,11,12,16 908:17,17,18,20 909:2,5,14,20 910:4,7,9,12,14 910:24 911:17 912:7 913:11 914:5,10,12,13 914:15,24,25 915:5,11 916:21 917:8,9,16 920:2,2 946:6 952:4 954:4 957:23 963:21 964:8 965:2,4 971:13 straight
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
911:22 913:14 925:21 931:12 931:14 932:10 933:2 944:11 945:15 949:3,6 949:13 950:18 951:10 955:5,10 959:19 966:24 967:6 970:11 971:4 Sejm 888:15 selected 876:25 self-explanatory 971:2 sell 858:8 865:6 selling 848:21 send 846:11 849:5 sending 979:7 senior 922:4 sense 901:8 923:2 923:6 928:23,24 929:19 930:4 968:5,10 sensible 881:21 sensibly 930:24 sent 901:6 931:5 932:3,11 sentence 850:4 857:24 863:2,5 864:21 870:2 945:16 956:23 separate 863:24 912:15 948:8 September 849:4 849:15 863:19 863:22 864:4,7 876:24 937:5 942:17,19 series 901:3 918:22 serious 844:8 906:9 930:16 949:2 955:7,10 seriously 906:2 set 856:10 876:25 887:6,25 888:25 890:12,13,17 892:15 898:21 933:7 950:8 sets 890:21 setting 865:20 881:14 settle 852:4 seven 897:7,10 942:15 seventh 844:24 sham 855:6 858:12 860:21 862:17,22 865:13 874:9 Shao
960:3 shareholders 873:14,18 shareholding 866:10 shares 848:21,25 849:10 854:3 862:12 865:6 866:11,15 shark 843:17 sharks 843:11,13 Shaw 968:2 shed 961:11 sheds 939:6 sheet 927:22 shifted 879:6,9 shillings 844:4 858:14 859:2 860:11 869:23 872:3 shines 928:13 shocked 878:6 shone 928:8 short 844:3 874:25 875:21 893:14 918:2 931:17 955:3 shortly 843:15 844:20 938:6 shot 858:9 896:4 shout 953:19 show 846:6 877:9 877:20,20 879:20 880:14 890:6 891:4 896:16 924:13 933:24 957:16 976:19 shown 858:20 906:11 968:25 shows 896:9,16 917:20 926:10 938:17 947:3,14 948:14 950:4,6 961:3 side 867:19 871:9 879:2 880:6 901:11,12 912:6 920:2 925:2 954:4,14 956:10 sides 905:9 signature 925:11 925:13 978:17 978:24 979:3 signed 846:7 855:8 861:4,8 861:10,14 873:17 874:4 significant 876:4 897:24 959:25 silly
895:10 Silverdale 882:11 893:23 894:13 899:22 904:17 907:6 912:21 924:18,24 937:2 939:9,21 941:18 947:18 948:23 951:4 952:22 957:22 963:16 964:2 Silverdale/Midd... 925:20 926:4 similar 892:6,9 920:12 932:5 959:14 similarities 966:25 simple 865:4 904:18 907:4 simply 851:7 876:15 877:6 881:20 883:17 884:11 887:15 888:6 892:12 894:24 896:14 897:3 900:19 902:14 904:8,25 905:19 907:13 912:18 921:23 930:5 940:2 956:12 971:22 single 842:3 878:10 Sir 969:21 sit 842:12 situation 899:7 923:24 930:3 937:20 957:14 six 889:19 sixth 844:25 845:2 950:4 skeleton 875:4,8 876:5 877:2,17 877:24 881:24 882:3 883:11 887:14 888:2 892:15 930:8 940:21 941:7,8 943:13,24 947:25 950:8 952:8 959:13,22 962:2,17 970:13 970:23 971:5 Skibel 967:13 skip 938:19 slander 973:4 slightly 908:16 966:3,22 small 842:8 845:5
845:7 951:11,19 977:18 smear 930:18 931:4 935:23 936:15 943:8 smearing 933:6 smooth 901:20 902:7 soapbox 953:8 social 891:4 society 941:16 sold 849:2 866:11 866:15 solicitor 905:13 solicitors 905:17 938:15 966:16 966:20 967:7 969:13,17 solid 944:13 solution 956:25 Solutions 853:6,7 854:23 855:3 979:21 solved 897:20 somebody 901:21 907:14 978:15 somewhat 891:24 son 888:19 soon 844:14 858:9 860:17 sorry 843:19 844:25 857:17 859:17 861:4 868:23 871:6 873:25 889:7 901:25 911:19 936:19 963:24 963:25 sort 872:21 882:12 893:11 901:19 927:20 927:22 941:12 971:12 sorted 899:23 sought 843:16,21 956:16 Soviet 944:23 speak 896:11 898:17 909:8 969:8 speaker 888:14 889:4 960:14 speaking 870:10 899:7 906:17 909:21 911:24 916:12,15 917:19 918:8 961:9 speaks 892:10 905:5 938:24
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
16 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 7 [Page 998] 887:6 895:10,25 896:3 899:18 901:20 902:20 904:16 909:10 909:16,19 910:13 931:5 939:10 947:11 953:15 962:16 974:16 975:12 things 851:6 860:14 865:8 875:11 876:11 881:5 897:9 901:20 902:7 904:2 911:24 936:25 944:7 951:20 952:19 977:5 think 842:2 845:8 845:16,19 852:19 854:14 855:4 859:25 860:24 868:7 869:3 871:11 872:10,14 873:5 875:13,15 887:4 887:6 888:15 892:13,21 898:8 898:10,13 905:16 907:18 908:2,15,17 909:25 910:2,11 911:18,19 913:4 915:8,10 919:22 924:9 926:20 937:8 939:3 942:15 943:20 947:23 950:19 953:23,25 956:17 960:24 960:25 962:17 963:2,5 967:16 968:3,20 975:22 976:22 977:11 978:10,16 979:2 979:6,15 thinking 876:24 thinks 881:13 third 845:2 853:17 871:10 896:7 905:6 911:25 948:25 964:21 969:9,11 969:12 970:4 978:24 Thirdly 928:20 thought 858:7 861:20 884:10 936:19 976:21 thousands 907:2 913:6 952:13 threat 975:19 three 851:20 880:14 882:10 917:12 922:24 935:5 945:2 949:15 963:3 978:21 thrown 912:9 tidying 978:3,5 till 980:4 timat 976:4,7 time 845:13 848:23 849:3,3 855:4 865:25 866:8,10 867:9 874:16 875:16 877:25 878:5 879:3,12,12 880:6,17 888:20 892:17 910:16 911:13 918:2 942:10 948:6 961:5 962:19,23 970:24 times 895:11 907:16 910:24 910:25 912:15 935:5 953:25 962:25 963:4 966:2,4 969:24 today 853:13 867:14 874:15 977:12,15 979:25 told 849:6 870:16 870:16 873:10 877:25 878:5 896:14 909:4,13 916:4 919:5,5 923:22 932:12 942:9 959:25 979:20 tolerance 890:7 tonight 977:4 top 846:4,7,9 853:20 862:9 869:25 873:13 885:21 886:9 908:9 911:20 916:18 920:15 920:21 926:3 931:12,14,18 936:3 963:23 964:9,11,20,23 topic 842:3 905:7 torment 897:17 tormentor 897:16 tort 875:22 877:4 877:21 878:24
883:3 902:18 967:16 Strand 841:3 strengthened 862:9 strike 875:23 879:16 906:6 strikes 864:18 strike-out 958:8 striking 878:20 912:4,14 914:4 925:14 955:25 strong 929:23 967:23 Stuart 898:21 Stuart's 899:2 stuff 927:21 928:15 961:5 subject 891:2 937:18 945:9 946:5,14 947:14 951:23 952:16 952:24 956:3 970:2,7 submission 848:4 878:25 893:2 894:24 898:14 902:14 904:5 905:10 911:21 911:23 918:8 919:3 920:15 921:22 941:14 946:20 947:3 950:7 953:5 958:11 959:13 963:9,13 965:22 969:5 973:15 976:11,20 submissions 875:4 875:6,7,12,14 875:19 877:3 878:14 883:11 890:16 902:17 903:11,20 904:3 905:8 906:8 910:2 916:18 922:15 927:3 929:7 930:11 939:4 962:19 963:19 965:12 970:16 971:20 973:11 975:13 977:6,12 submit 876:3 881:14 891:11 892:25 896:5 898:5 928:9 935:18 940:5 941:13 957:13 962:7,11 submits
956:11 submitted 888:17 946:9 969:6 submitting 907:13 965:23 subscribers 944:18 950:25 subsequent 847:21 900:12 substantial 866:3 875:21 877:4,21 878:23 879:20 880:14,18 938:8 974:3 976:17 substantially 974:10 975:15 substantive 876:2 sub-editor 906:21 succeeded 889:25 succeeds 881:9 suddenly 910:21 910:22 963:3,7 sue 876:14,21 sued 937:23 950:25 966:15 967:5 969:24 suggest 856:8 859:6 865:11 867:23 868:11 902:4 955:24 suggested 901:24 suggesting 901:19 906:13 934:5 967:4 970:9 suggestion 874:12 934:25 942:6 suggests 878:3 886:20 920:22 979:14 suing 876:25 suitable 961:13 962:3 summarise 864:12 904:6 summarised 930:13 summarising 894:25 Sunday 969:23 supplementary 938:23 support 931:3 944:23 supported 899:2 930:20 supporter 944:20 supporting 958:4 971:6 supports 930:24 949:24 suppose
897:12 918:25 953:5,25 959:11 971:17 supposed 848:10 848:11 939:25 966:4 Supreme 890:11 905:14 sure 892:10 943:21 961:23 surfaced 843:9 surfer 946:3 951:21 surprise 918:24 918:24 surprised 855:23 surprising 899:25 900:20 917:9 963:2 surprisingly 895:8 surround 850:21 survive 976:7 suspects 960:5 Swahili 862:3 sworn 842:12 sympathy 901:22 901:23,24 system 885:8 T tab 842:16 844:18 856:17 861:3,5 861:5 867:20 870:23,24 871:15 898:11 944:8 948:16 960:8,13 961:3 961:6 964:2,3 take 842:16 844:17 848:23 857:14,25 867:18 868:22 870:21 873:3 875:11 876:8 887:8 929:21 935:11,11,25 936:4,9,22,24 959:11 970:24 971:24 975:21 taken 849:3 863:17 868:9 880:17 888:9 892:6 894:19 931:25 938:2 940:14 945:13 947:20 956:4 976:21,22 takes 849:3 887:16 971:8 972:10 talking 907:17
909:24 930:25 tame 910:11 Tanzania 846:13 846:15 853:11 853:12,16 854:15 872:6 891:14 920:13 932:8 937:12,19 937:21 938:4 941:10,11 948:9 950:13,21 953:2 953:14 958:22 960:2 979:14,18 Tanzanian 894:5 977:20 Tanzania's 964:22 task 940:14 tears 961:11 teatime 979:11 telephone 841:16 909:8 tell 856:6 903:3 906:5 908:24 910:12 913:23 921:4 923:17,25 925:6,7 934:20 953:7,8 979:15 telling 909:21 919:11 ten 861:9 863:2,5 tendered 846:20 tens 907:2 913:6 terms 850:6,15 855:21 870:13 879:14 881:10 953:21 954:20 969:8 terrorism 963:21 964:7 terrorist 955:8,12 955:16 956:3 terrorists 957:10 957:10 test 958:17 968:17 970:13,14 971:3 text 889:12 943:20,21 thank 842:14 856:21 864:24 867:15 874:18 874:19,20 928:2 976:23,24 977:23 978:15 978:16 979:5 therefrom 877:10 thesis 919:3 thing 854:7 865:9 868:8 872:21 882:5 884:16
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
16 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 7 [Page 999] W waiting 978:14 waived 922:18 wake 963:7 walking 905:19 Walsh 841:15 want 848:19 850:8,12 854:8 854:10 861:13 867:18 875:19 879:21 898:7 899:2 918:21 919:14 920:10 938:17,22 979:8 wanted 880:3 899:17 928:15 931:16 941:5 Ward 967:12 warranted 969:19 washed 932:21 washing 851:7 watchdog 891:16 Watts 966:2,5,7 966:10,19 967:2 967:3,6 969:5 969:13,16,18,22 970:11 way 852:20,24 853:2 854:3 874:5 882:24 883:2 884:8 899:4 902:22,23 904:13 905:17 907:25 909:3,15 925:23,25 933:3 938:3 939:24 952:5 956:6 957:24 971:11 973:15,16,17 977:13 ways 932:10 972:19 WC2A 841:3,16 web 950:13 956:7 957:7,9 website 853:11,12 853:14 877:4,5 877:7,20 878:2 878:6,21 879:17 880:9,11,12,15 882:8,22 883:12 883:13,16,21,22 883:24 884:10 892:17 893:18 927:11 937:2 942:10,16,24,25 943:4,18 947:13 947:18,19,22 948:2,24 950:18 950:20 951:4 952:14,23 955:6 957:15,22,25 959:16 963:16 964:2 965:10 976:16 977:21 websites 944:25 945:7,23,24 week 842:13 846:17 863:20 863:25 weekend 977:14 weeks 939:11,14 went 844:13 898:14 904:25 906:16 921:20 940:9 942:24 946:13 947:13 947:18 962:9 975:3 whatsoever 863:14 969:8 whichever 939:24 whilst 891:19 978:14 Whitman 841:19 wholly 955:15 976:19 wide 956:7 969:2 970:4,8,14 wider 891:8 wife 872:14 889:16 898:23 willing 906:5 928:7 win 972:23 wish 899:3 959:20 wished 937:11 wishing 901:20 withdrawal 898:19 withdrawn 899:5 940:15 972:4 withdrew 874:21 934:10 965:5 witness 842:5,6,7 867:16 874:20 874:21 877:23 897:4 898:10 902:10 903:9,17 903:18 904:20 905:12,22,23 906:19 907:13 907:24 909:11 910:17 911:23 913:5,11 914:9 915:2 916:15,19 916:24 919:7,19 921:21 922:9,10 923:11 924:19 928:10,23
879:20 880:14 880:19 tortfeasors 969:17 tortious 881:4 total 853:22 872:2 901:4 950:18,20 totally 924:7 968:8 976:12,19 tradition 846:13 training 968:22 traitor 944:15 tranche 852:13 855:24 transaction 856:5 transcript 841:15 882:19 901:15 922:25 938:23 977:13 TRANSCRIPTS 841:24 translation 926:5 trawl 878:4 treat 906:2 treated 875:9 913:8 927:22 treatment 927:8 trespass 935:14 trial 875:5,18 879:4 925:14 945:2 958:7 tried 875:7,25 879:8 963:17 trouble 844:8 877:13 true 853:10 873:7 873:9,12 891:18 900:24 906:4 909:12 916:7,13 916:14 918:7,25 933:5,19,20 934:19 935:2 936:16,16 955:19 959:7 967:25 972:15 972:22 973:9 974:15,17,18 truly 850:2 trumped 898:22 940:6 trust 863:18 905:17 trusted 860:22 863:17 865:15 trustees 955:9 truth 867:23 868:18 890:23 911:7 921:5,5 928:6,7,8 958:16 973:8,10 974:3,6,12,23 try
865:7 899:4 902:25 906:7 933:24 941:12 946:18 953:15 972:3 trying 858:12 881:3 884:11 904:12 926:20 942:20 979:10 Tugendhat 879:3 879:16 turn 844:16 861:8 869:16 878:13 901:15 914:7 919:10 921:10 923:20 931:7 933:14 turned 907:22 969:11 turnover 872:3 twice 922:18 929:12 954:15 954:15 two 846:2,6 848:25 856:25 875:5 882:8 884:5 888:4 904:4,11 917:25 924:12 925:16 931:7 932:10,16 932:16 938:13 938:14 939:11 939:14 944:24 959:15 962:20 963:3 965:21 969:20 971:22 972:12 973:5 977:5 978:18 two-and-a-half 948:7 two-fold 918:18 two-pronged 941:22 943:12 two-way 868:2 type 957:16 typo 907:15 typos 939:18 U UK 944:18 948:9 ultimately 906:12 920:23 964:23 unaware 964:17 unclear 949:8 unconnected 968:8 undeniably 929:10 underline 950:9 undermining 956:8
understand 855:20 865:7,7 878:25 884:12 905:11 912:24 943:5 965:22 understandable 899:16 understood 884:9 884:12 894:11 undertaking 858:20 863:16 900:22 975:9 undertakings 975:16 under-valued 851:25 unequivocal 921:12 923:19 unexpectedly 897:19 unexplained 920:9 unfair 940:8 954:5 unfortunate 974:20 Unfortunately 919:18 unhesitatingly 924:21 unimpeachable 897:6 unit 961:17 United 878:5 948:11 950:21 university 944:24 945:24 947:13 unjustified 880:4 unmeritorious 976:12,20 unpublished 967:2 unreal 955:24 unrealistic 883:19 unsurprisingly 917:5 untrue 924:8 955:15,18 972:6 974:11 unusual 897:14 928:10 unwilling 928:16 upset 868:8 up-to-date 853:14 948:18 urges 960:15 use 898:18 931:6 934:24 967:19 uses 964:19 usher 978:3 979:7 usual
890:15,17 890:22 907:24 956:9 968:10 V v 887:7,20 906:13 943:14,23 944:5 954:23,25 955:5 958:2 966:2 967:12 968:10 vade 977:8 value 888:5 890:21,23 valuer 850:24 various 882:7 907:2 948:22 969:3 vary 968:19 Vassiliev 944:5,6 950:23,25 951:16 952:19 956:19 957:18 VECTOR 871:8 871:12 verification 954:11 version 939:17 vet 848:3 vexatious 885:7 vices 874:16 victim 962:13 966:13 victims 954:18 962:16 VICTOR 856:16 view 865:7 887:16 892:4 897:13 925:15 952:18 954:22 967:18 970:24 972:11 views 867:5 948:7 948:15 950:19 vindication 968:2 violence 885:5 violent 967:22 virtually 877:9 virtue 876:16 virulently 973:16 visited 878:2,6 949:14 950:13 952:11,14 957:25 visiting 948:14 visitors 948:10 949:22 950:4 visits 948:2,4,5,13 948:22,24 949:6 949:13,15 950:6 950:18,20 951:3 951:9,11,12,13 951:14
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
16 NOVEMBER 2012
PROCEEDINGS DAY 7 [Page 1000] 914:9 28 881:25 882:3 928:5 930:14 29 929:3 2900 841:16 3 3 844:17 878:14 889:2,8 894:24 906:24 914:6,12 917:2 921:11 923:20 949:21 954:24 961:3,6 3rd 842:8 843:6 843:15 845:17 845:21 863:22 864:4,10 868:12 870:7 912:12 3,000 950:21 30 888:2 915:14 915:16 31 877:18 888:2 933:2 31st 892:18 316-317 925:22 32 910:17 924:24 339 931:9 34 877:22 343 921:11,14 348 923:10 349 923:20,22 35 941:8 350 924:9,11 931:17 351 932:4 36 890:16 948:12 37 947:25 38 885:3 950:7 39 885:4,7 890:19 4 4 849:21 850:21 851:19,20 869:16,17 908:8 933:15,18 4th 937:5 4.4 859:16 4.4bn 872:2 40 885:10 890:25 408 914:7,8 41 885:21 886:9 413 917:2,3 417 917:2,15 42 842:17,17 43 842:17 867:20 45 891:6 940:23 46 898:10,12,15 959:13 462 948:7 47 891:7,16 48 962:18 5 5 850:3 852:3,12 892:23,24 893:10 915:3 971:20 973:2 5bn 872:3 5th 844:20 5.2 937:9 960:8,13 5.28 931:9 50 895:11 51 892:3 970:16 51% 857:16 858:4 519 911:15,16 52 965:12 520 908:8 521 909:12 522 909:23 523 909:23 910:3 525 911:6 55 960:8,13 55,000 933:6 6 6 905:7 949:5,7 6th 852:12 856:18 856:22 6-9 841:16 61 969:15 65% 862:11 651 950:4 951:12 656 966:23 657 966:24 66 941:9 660 967:8 665 969:3 67 941:9 670 969:10 68 941:13 69 949:6 955:21 7 7 841:23 888:13 921:14 70 943:13 955:23 7067 841:16 72 956:5 73 901:16,17 8 8 885:22 911:20 912:2,17 945:19 8th 912:12 89 959:22 960:7 960:11 9 9 861:25 885:23 911:6 923:22 952:2 90 962:2
932:24 933:25 935:13 938:18 939:7,13 948:6 948:12 959:24 witnesses 896:10 896:13 897:9 901:10 906:17 913:7 916:3 917:19,21,23 924:4 928:7 wodge 937:21 won 967:5 wool 858:12 word 899:11 907:14 971:10 wording 907:13 967:7 words 845:10 847:5 849:24 852:15 859:16 860:10 863:12 864:14 869:23 870:4,13 873:2 873:16 879:4,7 880:6 883:17 884:19 886:10 888:6 891:23,24 892:6 919:13 930:5,8 937:2 944:3 946:2,2 946:12,17 952:3 956:14,20,21,25 969:18,19,23 971:21 973:5,8 974:5 work 847:17 927:10,25 970:9 working 926:23 works 947:15 World 880:25 worldwide 948:8 948:15 950:15 951:12 956:7 957:7 worried 934:10 worrying 965:2 worse 920:11 worth 873:13 879:13 wound 906:5 write 868:6 961:13 writer 944:12 966:5,12,12 writes 867:5 878:15 956:18 writing 875:11 900:2 970:15 977:6 written 852:15
875:3,12 894:24 902:17 905:8 910:2 911:21 916:18 920:15 922:15 925:24 954:15,15 wrong 861:2 862:24,25 951:13 963:24 965:20 966:8 wrongly 969:22 wrote 847:4 919:7 922:14 926:3,8 967:25 X xii 857:4,5 Y year 865:24 937:6 948:7 years 879:18 880:15 897:7,10 924:24 942:7 949:15 963:3 971:22 yield 953:18 $ $50,000 935:22 943:7 0 020 841:16 1 1 842:16 867:20 901:15 924:17 933:15 936:2 1HP 841:16 1st 841:15 1,000 879:18 1,650 950:21 1.1 884:23 885:3 1.2 898:8 948:16 950:18 964:2,3 1.2(c)180A 878:14 1.7 849:23 852:5 869:22 10 862:9 863:3 890:6,13,15 916:18 941:15 943:11 949:16 951:16 953:20 955:9 10th 847:2 10(A) 942:22 10,000 879:18 10.30 979:25 980:4 100 879:17
102 842:18 867:20 109 844:18 11 888:21 898:11 920:15,21 928:21 11.03.2010 949:6 12 874:23 876:7 898:12 902:16 937:23,24 938:4 123 963:20 964:3 125 963:22,23 964:9,18 126 964:20 13 859:21 889:15 935:4 946:9 132 961:3,6 135 877:23 1371 973:4 14 889:18 142 883:20 963:16 146 944:18 950:17 950:25 15 858:13,25 862:6 863:8 944:8 946:16 949:22 15th 861:4,9,11 861:14 1500 907:4 151 948:17 154 933:15,16 948:25 156 949:23,25 16 901:18 934:2 16th 841:4 161 936:2,3 162 959:24 165 959:24 17 877:2 890:3 924:17 932:24 950:6 955:14 18 933:2 19 877:22,23 890:3 19th 900:22 912:12 936:10 943:9 976:2 980:4 190 927:11 1952 937:23,25 973:3 196 898:9 1992 888:14,21 2 2 842:16 844:17 867:17,19 882:16 888:14 919:8,16 925:21 945:10,15 950:3 2LL 841:3
2nd 911:17 2,200 891:7 2,500 950:21 2.1 869:19 2.1.1 869:22 2.12 852:12 2.5 844:4 860:10 20 859:10,12,18 859:18 860:2,3 870:21 871:3,3 871:15,17,18,18 946:21 954:24 20th 912:12 2000 944:19 2003 865:25 869:4 2004 865:25 869:4 958:8 2006 866:3 908:17 911:17 2007 842:8,25 843:6 845:14,18 845:21 846:19 847:2 856:13,18 856:23 861:3,7 867:20 868:12 870:8 872:25 917:7 978:7 2008 848:5 861:9 861:11,14,16 864:6 870:4 2009 843:10,15 844:20 855:4 863:19,22 864:4 864:7 867:24 870:12 927:11 942:11 949:22 2010 855:4 876:9 876:24 880:9 942:17,18,19 943:6,9 2012 841:4 853:15 203 900:8 21 861:9 890:11 911:16 213 919:9,16 22 861:9,13 911:16 922:15 938:21 939:5 23 890:13 924:10 950:8 23rd 843:10 23(b) 922:19 23(c) 922:19 24th 900:7,8 907:19 25th 900:8 26 890:13 26th 848:5 861:16 27 943:19,24 952:8 27A
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864
MENGI v HERMITAGE
16 NOVEMBER 2012
98 960:8,17,19
LONDON, WC2A 1HP
TEL: (020) 7067 2900
FAX: (020) 7831 6864

Mengi V Hermitage 2102 Trial Transcript

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Mengi V Hermitage 2102 Trial Transcript

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

MENGI v HERMITAGE

PROCEEDINGS DAY 7 [Page 843]

rebut your charge of being a shark of corruption? That is

Benjamin Mengi to compromise my principles and responsibilities."

the page, "In 2007, I resigned in protest as the Chairman of

[1] (Pages 841 to 844)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900

FAX: (020) 7831 6864

16 NOVEMBER 2012 [Page 845]

PROCEEDINGS DAY 7 [Page 847]

MENGI-PRICE Mr. Mosha, 10th August 2007. Do you have that?

Is that right? Committee Chairman.

25 Q. The function of the Investment Committee was to oversee NICO's

11 A. My Lord, whenever we have important documents to send out, one

17 Q. After I cross-examined you last week, you produced, or your

[2] (Pages 845 to 848)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900

FAX: (020) 7831 6864

16 NOVEMBER 2012 [Page 849]

PROCEEDINGS DAY 7 [Page 851]

13 Q. Your principles might have caused you to ensure that NICO

16 A. My principles required me not to be involved or not to, to be

19 Q. Look at the bottom of page 4 again. The very last line on

24 A. My Lord, I was not involved in this business. Whether it was

3 Q. If we read on, on page 5, for reasons best known to the

12 Q. Look at page 2.12 in the middle of page 5, "On 6th June...."

25 A. My Lord, I do not oversee what the Board of NICO does. I do

[3] (Pages 849 to 852)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900

FAX: (020) 7831 6864

16 NOVEMBER 2012 [Page 853]

PROCEEDINGS DAY 7 [Page 855]

have put him in one of, as a Board member in one of my media

12 Q. Let us look a little more closely at this famous Board

that was -- it might be the one on the very right-hand end of

18 A. My Lord, I am here under oath and I say he has never, never,

[4] (Pages 853 to 856)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900

FAX: (020) 7831 6864

16 NOVEMBER 2012 [Page 857]

PROCEEDINGS DAY 7 [Page 859]

3 A. My Lord, I cannot remember now whether I did it. My job was 4 5

pharmaceutical...." Mr. Mengi?

MENGI-PRICE see that?

3 A. Yes. 4 Q. "For 51% of Interchem which NICO plans to formally acquire 5

after the IPO."

19 A. My Lord as I say, I do not know what he was doing. All I

24 Q. As a member of the, as indeed the Chairman, Investment

[5] (Pages 857 to 860)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900

FAX: (020) 7831 6864

16 NOVEMBER 2012 [Page 861]

PROCEEDINGS DAY 7 [Page 863]

3rd September 2009.

September 2009 you resigned?

8 A. Yes, my Lord. 9 Q. If we look at this letter, "Please refer to my letter of 10

my resignation and until something was done and in this case

[6] (Pages 861 to 864)

TEL: (020) 7067 2900

FAX: (020) 7831 6864

16 NOVEMBER 2012 [Page 865]

PROCEEDINGS DAY 7 [Page 867]

4 Q. Mr. Mengi, it is perfectly simple; all you had to say was, to 5 6