Day 307 - 27 Nov 96 - Page 39
1 know, that organisation was set up to provide us with
2 support does not mean that we are part of it. Obviously,
3 you know, there is a degree of common interest, but it does
4 not automatically follow that we are then part of it. It
5 is up to McDonald's to prove that we were part of the
6 campaign and that we were responsible for particular
7 documents.
8
9 Just another point in relation to No 3. This occurred to
10 me just at lunchtime, actually. That the Plaintiffs are
11 saying that the campaign always has involved publication of
12 material of the kind in the Mclibel file and it has been
13 said that the Defendants are, and always have been,
14 involved in such publication since they support the
15 campaign, and the point of the campaign is to support them
16 in their legal battle.
17
18 Now, when we were arguing about admissions being taken
19 about statements made by McDonald's being admissions, and
20 that we could use them as evidence, Mr. Rampton actually
21 said that they could only be admissions if they were from
22 an authorised person. That is, you know, with a clearly
23 defined body, where you have got employees working for
24 McDonald's and so you know that they are part of that
25 Corporation, that organisation, whereas here we have got a
26 campaign where, just because we may have aims and ideas in
27 common, it does not mean that we are part of that campaign
28 or that we are responsible for each and every thing, or
29 anything, that it produces. You know, that is even looser
30 than the example of the McDonald's company, so how can it
31 be taken that anything put out by the support campaign can
32 be used against us in any kind of way?
33
34 Page 11 of the document -- well, it starts on page 10:
35 "The Plaintiffs have pleaded that our involvement in the
36 publication of the said material is further to be inferred
37 from things", such as if McDonald's think we will apologise
38 to them they are wrong, our defence, et cetera, "Dear
39 Everyone", and "McDonald's have billions of pounds to play
40 with. We just have each other".
41
42 There are various points I want to make about these. One
43 is that number 6, which is our defence, et cetera, you
44 might remember that is the document which has been the
45 source of a bit of controversy in this case. This document
46 was actually sent to a potential witness in Costa Rica.
47 Now, firstly, that is out of this jurisdiction, and,
48 therefore, McDonald's could not complain about it.
49 Secondly, it is a privileged communication, it is not
50 distribution to the public. It is communication to a
51 potential witness. McDonald's have brought absolutely no
52 evidence to show either that it was published in this
53 country or that it was not a privileged document. In fact,
54 it is quite clear from that document that it has been sent
55 over from Costa Rica. So they cannot rely upon that
56 document for those two reasons.
57
58 The second one, "Dear everyone". Actually, I am at a loss
59 to see how that would show, how the words "Dear Everyone"
60 would show that we were involved in the publication of that
