Day 255 - 23 May 96 - Page 27


     
     1
     2        Even if this cross-examination had any relevance to any of
     3        the issues in the action, which I am bound to say I doubt,
     4        I do invite your Lordship to bear in mind the Court of
     5        Appeal's ruling in Freudiana Holdings in which they said
     6        that it was the duty of counsel, and presumably litigants
     7        in person as well, to concentrate on the real issues in the
     8        case and not to spend large parts of the court time ----
     9
    10   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Why was all this put in the first place?
    11        That has been one of the big problems in this case.  So
    12        much has been put in on McDonald's side which is then
    13        questioned about and questioned by the Defendants.
    14
    15   MR. RAMPTON:  I understand that.
    16
    17   MR. JUSTICE BELL: Both in oral evidence and in documentary
    18        evidence.
    19
    20   MR. RAMPTON:  I have tried to be very careful in
    21        examination-in-chief and confine my witnesses to the
    22        matters which I do conceive to be important in the case,
    23        but certainly it may be that in making discovery we erred
    24        on the side of generosity but, with respect, that does not
    25        mean to say that it is right that this witness and your
    26        Lordship should endure, or indeed us people sitting down
    27        here, hours and hours of cross-examination about material
    28        which really cannot in the end assist your Lordship in
    29        deciding the outcome of this case.
    30
    31   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  At the moment, the way I see it is it is put
    32        in, you say, and I do not doubt that it was your motive for
    33        putting it in, because I can see two possible points of
    34        relevance:  Firstly, it is suggested that some of it anyway
    35        may have come from those who were involved in
    36        London Greenpeace; secondly, I suppose you might say if you
    37        need to justify taking proceedings over this leaflet, and
    38        I do not see that you do, I mean either the leaflet is
    39        seriously defamatory or it is not, but if you want to seek
    40        to justify bringing these proceedings you can say, "Look,
    41        there really was serious cause for concern because these
    42        allegations, which you contend are unfounded, were getting
    43        a wider and wider audience".
    44
    45        I can then see that it is fair game to the Defendants to
    46        make the point if they want to say, "Well we thought
    47        McDonald's were accepting certain allegations because they
    48        did not take action on them" to make that point.
    49
    50   MR. RAMPTON:  I agree with that but that does not lead them to 
    51        cross-examine Mr. Nicholson. 
    52 
    53   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I know.  I do not think I can stop you going
    54        through all of them if you choose to go through all of
    55        them.  I would suggest if you do choose to go through all
    56        of them, now that you have put the essence of the points
    57        you seek to make on various of these, if Mr. Nicholson just
    58        says "I cannot remember that one", whether or not you
    59        accept his answer, you accept it for the purposes of any
    60        further cross-examination and leave it as it is.

Prev Next Index