Affidavit of Anne Smallwood, the Vice-Chancellor's secretary, sworn 9th March 1990, applying to set aside Subpoena. Applications to set aside this and the two other similar subpoenas resulted in a hearing before Chancery Master Barratt on 9th March 1990 attended by a phalanx of Oxford lawyers, who, for their three days' work, proudly presented me with bills totalling £8,624.67. Some jape. - A. M.
I, ANNE SMALLWOOD, of 2 Russell Court, Woodstock Road, Oxford, OX2 6JH MAKE OATH and say as follows:
1. I am the secretary and personal assistant to the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford ("the University"). I have held this post since 1969. The matters to which I depose in his affidavit are true where those matters are within my own knowledge, and otherwise are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
2. This affidavit is sworn support of an application for an order that the subpoena issued by the plaintiff in these proceedings on 27th February 1990, requiring that I attend and give evidence and produce certain documents at the trial of this action commencing on 12th March 1990, be set aside. My grounds for making his application are as follows.
3. I shall explain to this Honourable Courts the nature of my occupation as secretary to the Vice-Chancellor. I am essentially the Vice-Chancellor's personal assistant; I organise his diary and arrange for him to be at his meetings. I also attend to such matters as typing, answering the telephone and generally ensuring the smooth running of the Vice-Chancellor's office.
4. The various meetings which the Vice-Chancellor habitually attends include those of the Delegates of the University Press. I understand that at these meetings the Delegates debate, amongst other things, which works the University Press will publish, but I have no knowledge of the detail of what takes place at those meetings, nor do I attend them. Moreover I know nothing of the specific format and content of the papers for the Delegates' meetings save what I glean from the occasional glance at them from time to time. In particular, I have no specific knowledge of the format and contents of the papers circulated to the Vice-Chancellor in advance of the meeting on 23rd July 1985. I am able to confirm that the Vice-Chancellor did not attend that meeting in any event.
5. Furthermore none of the papers for the July 1985 meeting now remains in the Vice-Chancellor's office. Because the secretary to the Secretary to the Delegates, Miss Goodall, retains copies of all of the papers for Delegates' meetings within the University Press, it is quite unnecessary for the Vice-Chancellor to retain his. Papers of this kind from one term are in the normal course disposed of during the next term. The meeting on 23rd July 1985 took place during the University long vacation. The papers for that meeting would have been treated as papers from Trinity term 1985 and therefore have been disposed of in Michaelmas term 1985.
6. There is now produced and shown to me marked "AS 1" a transcript prepared by the plaintiff of a telephone conversation which I had with the plaintiff on 10th November 1989. As appears at paragraph 26 of the transcript, the plaintiff asked me whether General Books would have appeared in a list forming part of the papers for the Delegates' meetings. At paragraph 27 and 29, I indicate that General Books would have been so listed together with reports on them. I have since ascertained, ('ascertained' amended by hand to 'understand'), however, that I was mistaken in this belief and that although such books may now be listed this was not the case in 1985. This is a matter, however, which others will be better able to deal with than I.
7. In the circumstances, I respectfully submit that I am unable to give any evidence which would be of assistance to this Honourable Court and the forthcoming trial in this action.
8. I would add by way of conclusion that it will be a matter of extreme inconvenience to the Vice-Chancellor if I am called upon to attend at the forthcoming hearing this action, for which, I am informed by my solicitors, on information from the defendants' solicitors, the current time estimate is six working days. Given my position in the Vice-Chancellor's office, in that I organise his whole agenda, my absence could bring about considerable administrative upheaval, not least because the University is currently drawing towards the end of term and the Vice-Chancellor is in consequence extremely busy.
9. In all circumstances, I humbly request that this Honourable Court do grant the relief sought.
Sworn by the said Anne Smallwood in the City of Oxford 9th March 1990
Go to the other subpoenaed witnesses' affidavits: Atiyah, Black.
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 Cambridge package and the Adrasteia package, to the publishing contract affidavits: Giles Gordon (1); Mark Le Fanu, to the APPEAL COURT JUDGMENT, to the damages affidavits: Alan Ryan; Asquith (3); Jeremy Mynott; Giles Gordon (2); Fred Nolan; Roy Edgley, to McGregor on Royalties (transcript), to the DAMAGES FINDINGS, and 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.