Day 306 - 26 Nov 96 - Page 33
1 leaflet complained of and I am assuming, because one has to
2 make some assumptions unless you are going to look at all
3 the original exhibits in a case, that TEC2 to the statement
4 is, in fact, a copy of the leaflet complained of. No one
5 has suggested it is not.
6
7 MR. MORRIS: Yes. I mean, I am sure it is the leaflet
8 complained of. The question is whether he can give
9 admissible evidence on it.
10
11 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Then, I think, what is said is that in a
12 case where I am dealing with balance of probabilities,
13 anyway -- it might be said even if I was dealing with the
14 criminal standard of proof to be sure -- if Mr. Carroll
15 says someone, someone on his staff, it is fair to assume,
16 hands to him on 16th October 1989 TEC2, as it later became
17 designated, which is a copy of the leaflet in question, it
18 is a fair inference that that person got it on that day
19 from the demonstration.
20
21 MS. STEEL: The one at TEC2-----
22
23 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Is there any challenge to that?
24
25 MS. STEEL: There certainly is. The one at TEC2, apart from
26 anything else, actually has the date of 31st May in the top
27 right-hand corner. The second -- well -----
28
29 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Let me look at TEC2. I actually want TEC2,
30 if not this afternoon, some time.
31
32 MR. RAMPTON: It is in what used to be Mr. Riley's exhibit box,
33 wherever that may be. Your Lordship will certainly need it
34 at some time next week or the week after. We will make
35 sure it is found.
36
37 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Very well.
38
39 MS. STEEL: It has 31st May on it and it clearly was not a
40 leaflet picked up on 16th October.
41
42 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I have not got the 31st May on mine. I have
43 something in the top right-hand corner above the 'N' and
44 'G' of 'wrong' in the top line, which is just one or two
45 dark marks, no more.
46
47 MR. RAMPTON: Nobody is saying, I do not think, that TEC2, or
48 whatever it is, the copy shown when he made his statement,
49 was necessarily the copy that he was handed. What I am
50 going to do is to take your Lordship to what each witness
51 said about the actual leaflet; not the copy, the leaflet
52 that they observed or was given on a particular occasion.
53 That will include Mr. Carroll, in which case, of course,
54 what your Lordship is saying just now is entirely right.
55
56 MS. STEEL: I think the point is that where you have a whole
57 series of different leaflets all entitled 'What's wrong
58 with McDonald's', it is completely unsatisfactory for
59 witnesses to claim to be identifying a leaflet unless they
60 can positively say, "This is the copy of the fact sheet
