Day 312 - 11 Dec 96 - Page 53
1 leaflets on various occasions after service of the writs.
2 The only relevant evidence is limited to the period before
3 the writs were served and, hence, no weight should be
4 attached to the videos and photographs taken on
5 demonstrations after the writs were issued. That would
6 also apply to evidence from, I think it was Mr. Carroll who
7 referred to later demonstrations where leaflets were handed
8 out.
9
10 Obviously, it is a point we have made before but, after we
11 were served with writs, we felt it was important to stand
12 up to McDonald's attempts to bullying, at bullying. So, it
13 cannot be assumed from that action that we had, therefore,
14 been involved with the distribution of fact sheets prior to
15 service of the writs.
16
17 11: Furthermore, even if the court finds that by virtue of
18 attendance at any of the anti-McDonald's fairs or
19 demonstrations, for example, the Defendants were involved
20 in the anti-McDonald's campaign, this cannot lead to a
21 finding that they are therefore responsible for the
22 publication of the leaflet complained of. To do so would
23 be contrary to the European Human Rights Convention, since
24 it would place a restriction on the Defendants' right to
25 freedom of expression and assembly if, in order to avoid
26 liability for a particular leaflet, the individual had to
27 avoid participation in any protest, action and/or campaign
28 against McDonald's.
29
30 We would say that that applies even more so to the
31 suggestion that mere involvement in London Greenpeace would
32 make an individual responsible. Clearly, if that was made
33 as a finding in law, then this could deter all sorts of
34 people from getting involved in any political organisation
35 on the grounds that they may, by getting involved, become
36 responsible for any leaflet produced by that organisation,
37 whether or not they actually took part in it, and clearly
38 if they are deterred from attending any political meetings
39 or demonstrations, then that is an interference with their
40 freedom of expression and assembly.
41
42 I am using "political" in the wider sense, not a "party
43 political".
44
45 MR. MORRIS: It would apply to any educational or charitable
46 organisations.
47
48 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
49
50 MS. STEEL: 12: Finally, the Defendants cannot, as the
51 Plaintiffs claim, be held liable for all onward publication
52 that occurred after the 20th September, 1987. By "onward"
53 I mean not by London Greenpeace but by X Animal Rights
54 Group or X Green Group, who purportedly originally got the
55 fact sheet from London Greenpeace. And the reason that we
56 cannot be held liable is that it is not known, there having
57 been no evidence on the subject, it is not known which
58 onward publication was as a result of leaflets distributed
59 after the 20th September, 1987, as opposed to being as a
60 result of leaflets distributed in 1986 and up to September
