Day 263 - 14 Jun 96 - Page 19


     
     1        relying on, distribution by London Greenpeace of these
     2        leaflets.
     3
     4   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It seems to me that rather helps you, does it
     5        not, that they are not actually relying upon activities
     6        from September 1990 onwards within London Greenpeace as
     7        observed by the inquiry agents.  For all I know, if they
     8        chose to call them, there is material that they could rely
     9        on.  But since they are not going to adduce any evidence
    10        about it, I put the possibility right out of my mind.  That
    11        is to your advantage, is it not?
    12
    13   MS. STEEL:  I would like to clarify something then, because if
    14        the case is that they are not going to rely on any kind of
    15        publication after the writs were served other than those
    16        two occasions, be it of whatever kind of leaflet,
    17        anti-McDonald's leaflet, the A5 -----
    18
    19   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No, I do not think that is their position.
    20        They are certainly not relying upon any publication, as
    21        I understand it, during the period of further cover by the
    22        inquiry agents.
    23
    24   MS. STEEL:   Well -----
    25
    26   MR. MORRIS:  The point is that we can rely on it, in terms of
    27        consent or the other matters which I dealt with that
    28        I thought were relevant, anyway, and if the Plaintiffs are
    29        going to rely on other material distributed by
    30        London Greenpeace at later dates after September 1990, then
    31        we are entitled to rely on the material that those agents
    32        were involved or responsible for by their involvement, or
    33        whatever.  So, obviously, there has to be parity in the
    34        argument.
    35
    36   MS. STEEL:   In the defence to counterclaim on page 6, the
    37        Plaintiffs have pleaded that:
    38
    39        "Since the service of writs the Defendants have continued
    40        to distributes and thereby publish leaflets entitled
    41         "What's wrong with McDonald's?", being shorter versions of
    42        the leaflet complained of at paragraph 3 of the Statement
    43        of Claim.  The relevant particulars of distribution and
    44        publication of the leaflets concerned are contained in the
    45        further and better particulars of the further and better
    46        particulars of the reply served pursuant to an order dated
    47        16th December 1993, and the voluntary particulars and the
    48        file of relevant leaflets served herewith."
    49
    50        The reference to the further and better particulars of the 
    51        reply is what I was referring to a moment ago, that 
    52        I thought I had. 
    53
    54   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Do they actually cover any meetings or events
    55        which could conceivably have been covered by inquiry
    56        agents?
    57
    58   MS. STEEL:   Yes.  They covered 16th October 1990, where we know
    59        Michelle Hooker was handing out anti-McDonald's leaflets,
    60        outside the Head Office.  But there are a number of other

Prev Next Index