Day 146 - 03 Jul 95 - Page 34
1 should be listed in relation to an issue in the main action
2 anyway?
3
4 MR. ATKINSON: I was actually going to say to your Lordship,
5 when your Lordship was talking about publication before and
6 you said you were not confusing the two issues as between
7 the main action and the counterclaim, I was going to say in
8 practice any documents that are given in relation to
9 publication and the defence to counterclaim obviously are
10 relevant to publication in the main.
11
12 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I wondered whether there was something
13 terribly subtle about it that you have sought these in the
14 letter of 3rd February related to issues in the defence to
15 counterclaim as opposed to an issue on the claim itself,
16 namely publication or not.
17
18 MR. ATKINSON: I wish I were capable of that sort of ----
19
20 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I wondered if you were concern that
21 publication of all the other documents which might be said
22 to carry much the same message as certain parts of the
23 leaflet which is complained of could not be relied upon as
24 similar fact.
25
26 MR. ATKINSON: Certainly, it is true that the defence to
27 counterclaim goes beyond the Statement of Claim in the
28 sense that it relies on these other pamphlets and leaflets
29 that we say have been published by the Defendants. So, to
30 that extent, it is wider. Yes, you are right in saying
31 that.
32
33 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Because you do not rely upon what you say the
34 Defendants did in relation to those other documents if
35 evidence of actual publication of the leaflet which is
36 complained of in the Statement of Claim.
37
38 MR. ATKINSON: Well, indirectly ----
39
40 MR. JUSTICE BELL: But one does not prove the other.
41
42 MR. ATKINSON: Certainly it cannot prove it directly in a
43 sense. It may be that your Lordship thinks it helps to
44 build up some sort of inference, but that is as far as it
45 goes, I think.
46
47 My Lord, anyway, the list, I have added in these things
48 about the financial affairs of the group because in two of
49 the supplementary statements that we served from the
50 private investigator, Mr. Pocklington and Mr. Bishop, there
51 is reference in those statements to the involvement of
52 either Ms. Steel or both of the Defendants in relation to
53 the bank account or the payment of bills for London
54 Greenpeace. We would say that the campaign against
55 McDonald's includes not only London Greenpeace but also the
56 McLibel support campaign as the case has gone on. I will
57 just give you -- it is paragraphs 20 and 21 of
58 Mr. Pocklington's supplementary statement, which is at
59 tab 7, what is said to be tab 7C.
60
