- INFORMINC (LM) LIMITED
- MICHAEL HUME
- HELENE GULDBERG
FURTHER AND BETTER PARTICULARS OF
THE DEFENCE SERVED PURSUANT TO A
REQUEST DATED 18TH FEBRUARY 1998
UNDER PARAGRAPH 8, PARTICULARS
Of: "v) The second and Third Plaintiffs shot other, subsequently
unused, videotape footage at the camp on 5 August 1992, in addition
to the said footage of Fikret Alic and others outside the depicted
1. State clearly and unambiguously whether it is the Defendants'
case that the Second and Third Plaintiffs deliberately chose not to use this additional videotape footage because they
knew that it would reveal the true nature of the camp and the
circumstances in which Fikret Alic and others came to be there.
2. The Defendants' case is clearly and unambiguously pleaded, especially
at paragraph 8, Particulars viii) and ix). The misleading impression
referred to therein could have been avoided by use in the said
reports of footage showing the area surrounded by the depicted
fence which the Second and Third Plaintiffs had entered with the
film crew and from inside of which they were filming Fikret Alic and the other men through
the depicted fence. It could, however, have been avoided in other
ways, for example by description or by use of footage of Fikret
Alic and the other men filmed from outside the area surrounded by the depicted fence.
2. In any event, and in order that the Plaintiffs may understand
the case against them, specify precisely how:
- the content of such footage, and
- the fact that it was not used,
is alleged to support the Defendants' case that the Plaintiffs
deliberately set out to create a misleading impression of the
2. See above.
Of: "vi) Neither of the said reports suggested or indicated that
the depicted fence was surrounding the film crew rather than
viii) Both of the said reports were written and compiled in such
a way as to give the misleading impression that Fikret Alic was
imprisoned and caged inside (and by) the depicted fence;
ix) The Court will be invited to infer that both of the said reports
were deliberately written and compiled by the Second and Third
Plaintiffs so as to give the said misleading impression;
x) The picture of Fikret Alic behind the depicted fence included
in the said broadcasts was subsequently reproduced and seen around
xi) The said picture was widely interpreted as evidence that Fikret
Alic and the others in the picture were caged inside the camp
by the depicted fence and that the Bosnian Serbs were therefore
running camps akin to Nazi concentration camps;
xii) As a result of the matters referred to at x) and xi) above
there was an international outcry against the Bosnian Serbs and
in favour of international intervention in Bosnia".
3. State clearly and unambiguously whether it is the Defendants'
case that Fikret Alic and the others in the picture:
- were not being forcibly detained in the area behind the depicted fence;
- were in truth at liberty to enter and leave the said area at will;
- were not in any way being forcibly detained at the camp by the
3. It is no part of the Defendants' case that these men were or
were not being forcibly detained in the camp at Trnopolje. The
camp was a transit and refugee camp to which some went for protection.
4. Given the Defendants contention that the camp wrongly came to
be viewed (on account of the Plaintiffs' reports) as evidence
that the Bosnian Serbs were running Nazi-style concentration camps,
state clearly and unambiguously whether it is the Defendants'
contention that nobody was being detained at the camp against
his will in any event stating what the Defendants allege was the
true nature and purpose of the camp.
4. The request incorrectly attributes a "contention" to the Defendants
which does not appear in the Defence. For the avoidance of doubt:
This camp was a transit and refugee camp as described at answer 3
above. It was not a Nazi-style concentration camp. The Defendants'
case as to the interpretation of the picture, as included in the
said broadcasts, is set out at paragraph 8 xi).
5. Specify with full and proper particularity the precise respects in which the Plaintiffs reports are alleged to have
been deliberately written and compiled in such a way as to give
the misleading impression that Fikret Alic was imprisoned and
caged inside the (and by) the depicted fence.
5. The Defendants will rely at trial upon the said reports which
contained footage of Fikret Alic and other men shot through the
depicted fence without making clear that the Second and Third
Plaintiffs and their crew were filming them from inside the area
referred to at paragraph 8, particular ii) of the Defence. The
said footage, in the context of the reports as a whole and (as
pleaded above) absent any indication in the reports that the filming
was being carried out in this way, created this misleading impression.
6. For the avoidance of doubt, clarify whether it is the Defendants'
- That, but for the Plaintiffs' picture of Fikret Alic, there would
have been no international outcry against the Bosnian Serbs and
in favour of international intervention in Bosnia: and/or
- That there was otherwise no justification for the international
outcry against the Bosnian Serbs and in favour of international
intervention in Bosnia.
6. (a) The Plaintiffs cannot and do not seek to speculate as to
whether such an outcry would have occurred but for the report
and picture, reproduced and interpreted as it was, as pleaded
at particulars x) and xi). The Plaintiffs claim is fully and properly
particularised at the said particulars.
(b) It is not.
Of: "xiv) The Second and Third Plaintiffs should then have explained
publicly the true circumstances (as aforesaid) in which they said
videotape shots came to be taken;
xv) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Second and Third Plaintiffs
have never given such an explanation"
7. In order that the Plaintiffs may know the case made against them,
specify clearly and unambiguously all facts and matters relating to the presence of Fikret Alic and
- In the area behind the depicted fence; and
- in the camp generally
which the Defendants alleged were "the true circumstances" that
the Second and Third Plaintiffs should have explained publicly
but did not do so.
7. The Defendants' case is properly pleaded, in particular by reason
of the words "as aforesaid" at xiv). The Defendants case as to
the said true circumstances is at paragraph 8, particulars i) - iv) inclusive and viii) (Fikret Alic was not imprisoned and caged inside, and by, the depicted fence).
Served the day of 1998
by Christian Fisher of 42 Museum Street, Bloomsbury, London WCIA
ILY, solicitors for the Defendants.
Request for Further and Better Particulars of the Reply