Affidavit of Lauchlin Glenn Black, sworn 8th 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, LAUCHLIN GLENN BLACK, of 56 Wytham Street, Oxford, OX1 4TS MAKE OATH and say as follows:
1. I am a Fellow in English at Oriel College, Oxford and held office as Junior Proctor of the University of Oxford ("the University") from March 1985 to March 1986
2. The matters to which I depose in this Affidavit are true where those matters are within my own knowledge, and otherwise are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
3. This Affidavit is sworn in support of an application for an order to set aside a Subpoena dated 13 February 1990 served upon me by the Plaintiff in this action requiring that I attend and give evidence and produce certain documents at the trial commencing on Monday next, 12 March 1990.
4. In my capacity as Proctor I was called upon to sit on numerous committees and boards of the University and to attend at their meetings. It is a conservative estimate that a Proctor will attend of the order of five hundred meetings during his year of office: such was certainly the case when I served as Proctor. Some of the meetings which I was called upon to attend were those of the Delegates of the University Press. As Proctor, I was merely an 'ex officio' officer at meetings of the Delegates, that is to say that I was present by virtue of my office, in an observatory capacity, and not because I was closely involved with any of the works which were discussed at those meetings. Proctors are entitled to vote at such meetings, but do not address in any detail the merits of publishing the particular works which are from time to time under consideration by the Delegates as a body.
5. I have made enquiries of Sir Roger Elliott of the University Press and have confirmed that the Minutes for the meeting of the Delegates which took place on 23 July 1985 ('the July meeting') show that I was present. I was obliged to check, because I could not recall having attended. Although I have established my presence at the said meeting, I am able to say that I have no specific recollection whatsoever of what took place at that meeting. It follows that I will be unable unable to assist this Honourable Court by giving evidence of the events which took place at the July Meeting.
6. Nor do I have any documents relating to the July Meeting in my possession, custody or power. Although I would in the normal course have received the papers for that meeting, I would have dealt with them in the way that I dealt with all such papers, that is, I would have passed them to the University Marshall once the meeting in question had taken place. Proctors' papers of all descriptions, except in exceptional cases, would be retained in the Proctors' Office for a short time only and thereafter disposed of.
7. On receipt of the Subpoena I spoke to the University Marshall, who has confirmed to me that none of the Proctors' papers for the meetings of the Delegates which took place during my year of office are now held in the Proctors' Office: all were disposed of in the normal course that I have described. It follows that I am not in a position to produce to this Honourable Court any of the documents referred to in the said Subpoena.
8. There is now produced to me marked "Exhibit LGB 1" a bundle of documents, at page 1 of which is a true copy of the transcript of part of a telephone conversation between myself and the Plaintiff supplied by the Plaintiff to the solicitors for the Defendants in this action, and in turn supplied by the Solicitors for the Defendants to my Solicitors. The transcript is of part of a telephone conversation I had with the Plaintiff on 5 May 1989. The Plaintiff telephoned me whilst I was engaged in a tutorial; it is therefore the case that my train of thought was elsewhere, and my main concern was to bring the conversation to an end as soon as possible. In fact, although the Plaintiff has transcribed only a short extract of our conversation, I recall that it was relatively lengthy, lasting, I believe, for some ten to fifteen minutes. I might add that I do not recall having been told that our conversation would be taped, nor, for that matter, being told that the Plaintiff was requesting my assistance for the purpose of legal proceedings,
9. During that conversation the Plaintiff asked me a number of questions, specifically whether a list of titles of General Books to be considered for publication would have been tabled at a meeting of the Delegates, and if so, whether such a list would have been on a separate sheet of paper. My response to these questions, in brief, was that a list of titles of General Books would have been tabled. I did not, however, intend to suggest that such a list would be in the form of a separate sheet of paper. To the best of my knowledge, there was no such separate sheet of paper for General Books but only a set of Delegates' Notes which were appended to the Agenda. Further, since the papers which I would have received would have been the same as those circulated to all Delegates, I do not believe that I am able to give any evidence as to the contents of the documents normally prepared for meetings beyond that which can be given by other Delegates. In this context, I understand from my Solicitors that the Solicitors for the Defendants will be calling Sir Roger Elliott, who I understand chaired the July meeting in the absence of the Vice-Chancellor; and the secretary to the Secretary of the Delegates, Miss Goodall, who retains the University Press's papers for all such Delegates' meetings.
10. I should add that for me to attend at the forthcoming trial would cause considerable disruption to my obligations both to the University and to Oriel College in the coming week and beyond. In particular I have a number of important University meetings and teaching commitments to attend to.
11. In all the circumstances, I humbly request that the Honourable Court do grant the relief sought.
SWORN by the said LAUCHLIN GLENN BLACK in the City of Oxford, 8th March 1990
Go to the other subpoenaed witnesses' affidavits: Atiyah, Smallwood.
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.