Day 304 - 22 Nov 96 - Page 29


     
     1        being available at the meeting.  So, effectively, there is
     2        no real evidence that the fact sheet was available at that
     3        meeting.  The only evidence there was was from Mr. Clare,
     4        who later admitted during cross-examination that he was not
     5        in a position to state that the fact sheet had been
     6        available at that meeting.
     7
     8        Moving on to 1st March 1990, in his statement
     9        Mr. Pocklington had said -- this is page 5 of his
    10        statement, at paragraph 18 -- that: "Before I arrived at
    11        the meeting, Mr. Morris and others had been answering
    12        letters including a range of leaflets, including the
    13        anti-McDonald's leaflet."
    14
    15        But, although a copy of the fact sheet had been appended to
    16        the statement that he made three years after the event,
    17        during cross-examination, he did state that he had no
    18        recollection of which version of the leaflet had been sent
    19        out.  That was day 262, page 30, line 1.  The
    20        contemporaneous notes made of that meeting did not specify
    21        which leaflet had been enclosed; and it should be borne in
    22        mind that the A5 leaflet was also referred to as an
    23        anti-McDonald's leaflet.
    24
    25        Obviously, that witness also said that he could not say
    26        whether or not Mr. Morris had actually been answering the
    27        letters or not and where they had been going to, and so on;
    28        but Mr. Morris is going to go into more detail about that
    29        on Monday.
    30
    31   MR. MORRIS:   Or even if they were posted.  I don't think there
    32        was any evidence on that.
    33
    34   MS. STEEL:   Alan Clare was also present on that date, but there
    35        was no evidence from him regarding distribution of the fact
    36        sheet or putting it in envelopes, or whatever, on that
    37        occasion.
    38
    39        So, effectively, again, there is no proper evidence which
    40        you could rely on as a basis for finding that the fact
    41        sheet had been distributed on that date.
    42
    43        26th April 1990 -- this was the evidence of Mr. Russell,
    44        Jack Russell.  He asserted that the fact sheet had been
    45        available at this meeting and that he had taken away a copy
    46        of the fact sheet.  That was in his statement, but it was
    47        not specified in the notes -- well, it was not specified in
    48        the report which he provided to the King's Investigation
    49        Bureau, which was supplied to McDonald's; and we have to
    50        ask: where is the fact sheet that was collected, according 
    51        to him? 
    52 
    53        Mr. Rampton conceded that exhibit JR/2 was not relied upon
    54        as the leaflet that was collected on that day.  That was at
    55        day 263, page 37, line 11.  So, the Plaintiffs are
    56        accepting that the leaflets that were appended at JR/2 were
    57        not the leaflets picked up on that day.  Therefore, what
    58        and where is the proof of publication on that date?   It is
    59        not proof of publication to append a leaflet to a statement
    60        made three years after the meeting, where it is accepted

Prev Next Index