First version of statement served in exchange on 19th October 1989, amended version served on 13th November 1989
1. My name is Richard Denis Paul Charkin. I have been involved in publishing for a number of years, having worked at Harrap & Co, Pergamon Press, Oxford University Press and Octopus. I joined Oxford University Press in 1975 and reached the position of Managing Director of Academic Division. My current position is Executive Director of Octopus Publishing Group, Michelin House, 81 Fulham Road, London, SW3 6R8.
2. At Oxford University Press, books which are to be published go through the following procedure:
3. Editors commission a book. This involves either contacting an author about writing a book, or viewing unsolicited work sent in by authors. Once an editor receives a proposal for a book, it is sent of for a referee's opinion. When that has been obtained, a Publishing Proposal Form is filled out with proposed economic details for a hook. That form is taken to an editorial meeting, at which editors, sales and production staff and the Publisher are present. The proposal is discussed, and if it is decided a book should proceed to be approved by the Delegates, the Publishing Proposal Form is signed.
4. Proposals for books are shown to the Delegates in the form of Delegates' Notes. These notes are a one-page or less description of the book proposed and may include comments from readers.
5. If the Delegates approve a proposal, then the book is accepted for publication, and a written contract is sent to the author. Such a written contract is, however, subject to acceptance by Oxford University Press of the final manuscript.
6. My own role at Oxford University Press was that I was Managing Director of the Academic Division and I had authority to sign the Publishing Proposal Form for a book, following discussion of it at an editorial meeting. I did not have the final say as to which books were to be published. Every book that is publisbed must be accepted by the Delegates first.
Page 2 (64)
7. Henry Hardy was an editor and he was responsible for commissioning books. He obtained reports for book proposals, drew up Publishing Proposal Forms and presented them to editorial meetings in order to see if the proposals should proceed to the Delegates. He had no authority to issue a contract to any author and had no authority to pass proposals on to the Delegates without a Publishing Proposal Porm being signed first.
8. At Oxford University Press, the essential form used in approving a book is the Publishing Proposal Form. This form is used to establish the likely profitability of a book so that when the Delegates consider it as a publishing proposal, they know its economic viability. The Publishing Proposal Form is taken to the editorial meeting and if it is decided to recommend a book to the Delegates, the Publishing Proposal Form for that book must be signed. The economic viability of a book is indicated on the Delegates' Note using the terms: Red, which means a book would not be profitable; Amber, which means a book would not be unprofitable; and Green, which means a book would be profitable. When a book proceeds to the Delegates for approval, the Delegates are shown the Delegates' Note relating to that book.
9. When 'Making Names' was first presented at the editorial meeting on 17 July 1985, I took the decision to reject it. I arrived at that decision using three criteria that I use to decide on books. A book doesn't have to meet all these criteria, but it does need to meet at least one. Those criteria are profitability, quality and author. I felt that 'Making Names' did not satisfy me on any of these criteria and so made the decision to reject the typescript. I considered it was my responsibility to do so and in fact, that I had a positive obligation to do so.
Page 3 (65)
10. When the book was re-submitted in its second draft form, it was rejected. Nicola Rion made this decision, based on the advice she had received from Alan Ryan, who had read the second draft.
11. The memorandum of 16 July 1985 is a Delegates' Note for the book. It is a standard procedure to draft such a note not only in advance of the Delegates meeting, but also in advance of the editorial meeting at which the particular book to which a note refers is to be discussed. I don't know if this particular note was forwarded, but I don't think it was.
12. A Delegates' Note does not show that a book has been accepted at the editorial meeting to be presented to the Delegates for final acceptance. It is used to give an indication to the Delegates as to its academic merit. If the Delegates accept a book, the Delegates' Note for that particular book is usually markcd with an indication that it has been accepted, e.g. "accepted".
13. I instigated the disciplinary action against Henry Hardy because whether or not a contract had been made, it was quite apparent to me that an author's hopes had been raised. Henry Hardy had breached the rules and accepted practice of Oxford University Press and so I felt that disciplinary action was necessary. I rejected the book, however, because I felt I had an obligation to do so, as it did not meet any of my criteria.
14. After I wrote to Mr Malcolm (in a letter dated 18 July 1985), Henry Hardy spoke with me about the possibility of Mr Malcolm re-submitting the book. I agreed that he could write to Mr Malcolm, "softening" the tone of my letter. I agreed we should give Mr Malcolm every opportunity, as with any other author, and so agreed that should Mr Malcolm re-submit the work, Oxford University Press. would look at it afresh, as with any new typescript.
Page 4 (66)
15. The letter of 30 July 1985, from Henry Hardy to Andrew Malcolm follows on from that idea of re-submission. Henry Hardy wrote to suggest some revisions Andrew Malcolm could make befEore he re-submitted the book. The circumstances surrounding the letter of 9 May 1986, from Nicola Rion to Andrew Malcolm are that Andrew Malcolm had re-submitted the second draft and Nicola Bion had sought Alan Ryan's opinion of it. Alan Ryan's opinion was that it should not go before the Delegates and this letter reflects that opinion. The fact that Nicola Bion had copied the letter to Alan Ryan indicates to me that she was acting on his opinion.
16. It is possible that the book, had it been accepted, could have been published in any form, numbers of copies or at a royalty other than those included on the Publishing Proposal Form. Any or every one of these details could be changed, as the Publishing Proposal Form is not the final form. Before the final figures are worked out for a book, there is consultation with sales and marketing staff and it may be that the figures on a Publishing Proposal Form would be altered.
DATED the 19th day of October 1989
Richard Denis Paul Charkin
Go to the next item in the Witnesses (yellow, blue) files.
Go to Malcolm's Statement of Claim, to the Case History, to the Affidavits: Ivon Asquith (1), Asquith (2), Henry Hardy, William Shaw (solicitor) (1), Sir Roger Elliott (1), Margaret Goodall, to the Witness Statements: Elliott, Hardy, Richard Charkin, Nicola Bion, Goodall, to the courtroom testimony of the Oxford Six, 14/3/1990: Elliott, Goodall, Bion, Asquith, Charkin, Hardy, to the testimony of Andrew Malcolm 13/3/1990, to the Chancery Court Judgment, to the Appeal Court Judgment, to the Damages assessment, to the Settlement agreement.
Return to the Malcolm vs. Oxford I (1984-92) Index, to the Malcolm vs. Oxford II (2001-02) Index, to the blurb for Making Names, to its reviews, to The Remedy, or to the SITE INDEX.