Henry Wilkins QC: Let me make it clear before we even begin this interview. I will not answer any question specific to the ruling of the Oilspill Libel case, as it is now known. I am a judge, a Queen’s Councilor, and proud to serve at Her Majesty’s Royal Courts of Justice. I am somewhat suspicious of blogs, of what one can or cannot write, and I am anxious to read this book by Alon Shalev – Oilspill dotcom – and see how he portrays my role or the role of the law.
Interviewer: Let us begin with this aspect of the court case. Did you ever imagine when the two sides stood before you on that first day in court that the case would last for so many years and become the longest trial in British history? Or that it would attract such a high profile?
HW: Certainly not. The mere notion that two amateurs could take on a legal heavyweight as Jeffery Sithers and fathom their way through such a complex framework as the British libel laws is baffling. Of course, no one imagined that the website Oilspill.com would have such a profound effect or such worldwide appeal.
Int.: Did you ever feel that you wanted to help or advise the defendants because of this blatant inequality?
HW: Hmm, a tough question. With regard to the actual issues, I never felt a desire to support either side. I am most comfortable with the gown and wig that I wear and understand my role of objectivity, of ensuring that the law is respected.
But then I sat there for two years seeing two exhausted and frustrated young people, clearly committed to what they perceive as a better business and world model, but always outflanked, out resourced and, certainly out-briefed, not that such a word exists.
Then at the other table sat Jeffery Sithers, the legal heavyweight in Britain, with seven legal aides, all dressed up in their pin-striped suits, and always prepared for what was unfolding. Did you know that the company actually provided Jeffery with a young caddie, whose sole responsibility was wheeling all their documents in and out of the courtroom?
Int.: What was groundbreaking about this case?
HW: Hmmm, I think there are two significant aspects. Clearly, it exposed the need to update the British libel laws, which, I believe, have been left untouched for 500-600 years. Secondly, the whole aspect of the growing role of the Internet: that such a global informational conduit could be leveraged in such a fashion, well let me tell you, it was fascinating. And, between you and me, I have continued to learn and stay abreast of these technological advances.
Int.: How did you feel when you saw Professor McGoughen enter the fray?
HW: Ha! That old cad! I think that the only time I allowed my emotions to show was the first time I saw that old fox sitting up in the galley grinning. I never thought he could be lured out of his Oxford University sanctuary. He might seem eccentric to some, but let me tell you, he was a legal titan in his day. He pursued the multinationals and big businesses with a vengeance. I clashed with him many times over our careers and I hold him in the highest esteem. Still, I can’t say I was too happy with him when he pulled that stunt on me at the end of the trial.
Int.: Without getting into the court case itself: what lessons can we all learn from what transpired in your courthouse?
HW: Hmm. Firstly, that the law makes everyone accountable, no matter how big or wealthy they might be. It must fulfill this role. Secondly, that the Internet has an important role of keeping things in the open, so that we all make informed choices and have the information at our fingertips.
And one effect that this case had on me, personally. We only have one world and we are all responsible for what happens to it. It is a fragile world and getting frailer everyday.
Int.: Do I detect a value judgment of the court case?
HW: Good Heavens! No! Strike that from the record!