Day 307 - 27 Nov 96 - Page 29


     
     1        which it is alleged that you distributed, contains lies as
     2        well as the other material.  Whether or not published
     3        before the proceedings were commenced or afterwards, you
     4        were therefore responsible for lies, as I understand it.
     5        Your point may be right.  You may say it is suggesting that
     6        you continued to lie, and that may be the significance, or
     7        possible significance, of other material -- for instance,
     8        shorter leaflets -- in addition to the leaflet complained
     9        of.
    10
    11        It has been helpful for you to go through the pleadings,
    12        and I have to look at them, but you do not have to go
    13        through them with a fine toothcomb.  At the end of the day,
    14        I have just got to see what has been proved, if anything,
    15        and to what extent it matches, if at all, any defamatory
    16        statement in the press release, the Background Briefing and
    17        the leaflet to customers.
    18
    19   MS. STEEL:  OK.  It just appeared to me they were inferring in
    20        there it was publication after the service of writs, but I
    21        will leave it there, anyway.  The little (3) on that page,
    22        again, they have not specified whether they are saying that
    23        we deliberately or recklessly deceived the public.  So, we
    24        do not know what their case is going to be on that.  So it
    25        is very difficult for me to say.
    26
    27   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   I think it is put in the alternative.  They
    28        appear to me to be saying you did it intentionally, and if
    29        I am not satisfied that you did it intentionally, you
    30        certainly did it recklessly.  I think that is what it
    31        says.  As you say, one has to ask whether recklessness is
    32        enough for any kind of justification, if it be proved.
    33
    34   MS. STEEL:   OK.  Going on to number (5), which is still a
    35        particular of justification:  "The Defendants have, as
    36        members and representatives of London Greenpeace,
    37        deliberately ignored several letters sent by McDonald's
    38        solicitors since 1984 advising them that the leaflet
    39        'What's wrong with McDonald's' was defamatory."
    40
    41        How can they say that we have deliberately ignored several
    42        letters, bearing in mind that their pleading about the
    43        meaning was only that they referred to two letters.  That
    44        was on page 3, paragraph C.  We would say that this
    45        statement is simply not justified.  There is no evidence of
    46        any letters, other than one written in 1984, about a
    47        different leaflet and one in September 1990, which enclosed
    48        the writ.  There is no evidence in this case that either of
    49        us were involved in the group in 1984 at the time when this
    50        letter arrived and, therefore, could be said to have 
    51        ignored the letter. 
    52 
    53   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  There was a suggestion, was there not, from
    54        Mr. Nicholson, that he asked for a letter to be written in
    55        1987, but there was no evidence that it actually was
    56        written or sent?
    57
    58   MS. STEEL:   That is right, and Mr. Nicholson did not bother to
    59        check up on whether or not it had been written or sent.
    60        But the point is that there is no evidence in this case

Prev Next Index