Day 305 - 25 Nov 96 - Page 16


     
     1        photocopying later on, the Plaintiffs, it seems to me, say
     2        that anyone who was involved in production in '86 or '87,
     3        with a view to distribution of this leaflet as and when the
     4        occasion arose, is in fact responsible in law for those
     5        publications.  Just let me finish.   If I think there were
     6        publications between September 1987 and September 1990,
     7        then they are responsible for those.
     8
     9        I am not seeking to argue with you.  What I am trying to do
    10        is give you the opportunity ---
    11
    12   MR. MORRIS:  We would not accept -----
    13
    14   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  -- to put your points about that.
    15
    16   MR. MORRIS:  We reserve our position, but we would not accept
    17        that that is what the law is.  If the allegation is purely
    18        one of production, in terms of an act, then that took place
    19        outside the limitation period -- if, indeed, it did, which
    20        it did not, but let us assume it did -- then it should not
    21        apply; the resultant publication or distribution falling
    22        inside the limitation period, then we would say we do not
    23        accept that that would be the basis of a cause of action.
    24
    25   MR. JUSTICE BELL: Let us have the five-minute break there, and
    26        then you can carry on.
    27
    28                          (Short Adjournment)
    29
    30   MR. MORRIS:   Looking at the period from 1987 to 1989, the only
    31        evidence until October 1989 is from our witnesses about
    32        what happened in London Greenpeace or at meetings, or
    33        whatever.  As far as myself is concerned, there is not one
    34        scrap of evidence that I was involved in the
    35        anti-McDonald's activities that came up at meetings.  In
    36        fact, the evidence is to the contrary.  The evidence is
    37        that my involvement in the group or in meetings at all was
    38        tailing off during that period and that I was, effectively,
    39        just an occasional visitor as from about the Summer of 1989
    40        onwards, something like that.
    41
    42        So, I would say there is nil evidence at all of any
    43        responsibility for publication in that period for me, my
    44        responsibility for that publication.  The burden of proof
    45        is on the Plaintiffs.
    46
    47        During the period of October 1989 to the service of writs,
    48        I was clearly not active with London Greenpeace, although
    49        I may have made the odd visit from time to time; and that
    50        those were for two reasons -- this is effectively the 
    51        evidence both from our witnesses and, indeed, the 
    52        Plaintiffs' witnesses in general -- and the reasons were 
    53        partly personal reasons, because of my domestic
    54        circumstances, and partly political reasons.  For example,
    55        one of the things I have expressed dissatisfaction with the
    56        group about was the time that the group -- was, really, the
    57        anti-McDonald's campaign.  I had expressed dissatisfaction
    58        with the anti-McDonald's campaign and argued against the
    59        fair being an anti-McDonald's fair, on the few occasions
    60        I visited meetings.

Prev Next Index