Day 305 - 25 Nov 96 - Page 19
1 infer that that is the fact sheet complained of.
2
3 I mean, we say that, as a matter of law, in any event, the
4 distribution that we are responsible for, that any
5 fact sheet -- sorry, I will start again. The law would
6 compel, we say, the Plaintiffs to produce originals of what
7 they say was distributed at a specific time that was the
8 London Greenpeace fact sheet that we are being held
9 responsible for; we are saying they are under an obligation
10 to produce that original, in any event.
11
12 They are under an obligation to prove, obviously, the
13 travel path, where we caused that document that has been
14 produced in court to have been given to a third party.
15 That is a kind of secondary point to what I am
16 concentrating on at the moment, which is that if they
17 failed to bring an original to court, we believe that they
18 do not have the evidence on its distribution on that
19 particular date, unless they brought some evidence as to
20 how the original was lost and how they can be sure that a
21 copy made from that original document is, indeed, a true
22 copy of that original document that they have got some good
23 reason for having lost.
24
25 If we keep emphasising, in this part of the case the
26 obligation is on the Plaintiffs to prove their case.
27
28 We did not have one original document verified by a witness
29 as being the item that they picked up or obtained. We did
30 not have one piece of evidence from Barlow Lyde & Gilbert,
31 or anyone else, as to exactly what happened to that
32 original, how it got lost and how, fortunately, copies were
33 made beforehand of that actual discrete document; and,
34 therefore, there was no evidence brought into this court of
35 distribution of the fact sheet complained of which can be
36 said to be the responsibility of me or Helen.
37
38 We have got some law on that which, when we do our produce
39 our legal submissions, after we have some time when
40 Mr. Rampton has handed over his material, hopefully, we
41 shall do that next week.
42
43 So, what we are saying is that our understanding of the law
44 is what we have just said, that it is even more compelling
45 for the Plaintiffs to have that obligation to produce
46 originals in a situation where there is clear confusion in
47 everyone's minds as to what specific leaflets people are
48 referring to because of the wide range that existed. That
49 is basically it. Even the fact that even at this late
50 stage Mr. Rampton can hand up a document which emanated
51 from Manchester only goes to emphasise that even further.
52
53 I want to sit down for a couple of minutes.
54
55 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes, do. (Pause)
56
57 MR. MORRIS: Can I just make one point in relation to that last
58 point about the obligation of the other party to prove
59 originals? I think one thing that is fairly instructive is
60 the evidence of Mr. Howes, which McDonald's were hoping to
