Day 307 - 27 Nov 96 - Page 24


     
     1
     2   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Is there anything further on --
     3
     4   MS. STEEL:   Sorry.  Going on to page 6 of the defence to
     5        counterclaim, about the "despite the lack of any or any
     6        substantial support for the allegations in the evidence
     7        served in the main action and the discovery in witness
     8        statements on behalf of both the Plaintiffs and the
     9        Defendants".  I mean, I think this is just completely
    10        ludicrous because whatever they may say about the weight of
    11        the evidence the Plaintiffs cannot say that our witness
    12        statements do not back up what was said in the fact sheet
    13        and, as I said before, our view is that both our witness
    14        statements and to a notable extent, or noteworthy extent,
    15        the Plaintiffs' witnesses, plus the discovery made on both
    16        sides, bears out the truth of the fact sheet.
    17
    18        I have lost something which I wanted to refer to.  (Pause)
    19        On page 6, under (i), or little one, whatever you want to
    20        call it.
    21
    22   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Do not worry.  Little one.
    23
    24   MS. STEEL:   It says that we have continued to -- "despite not
    25        having any evidence we have continued to distribute" --
    26        sorry.  I have got it now.  I was misunderstanding my
    27        notes.  Actually, in this paragraph they are only alleging
    28        distribution of the shorter versions of the 'What's wrong
    29        with McDonald's' leaflet.  They do not actually allege
    30        distribution of the fact sheet since the institution of
    31        proceedings.  They say that the relevant particulars of
    32        distribution and publication of the leaflets concerned are
    33        contained in all the various further and better
    34        particulars.
    35
    36        If I just say that whilst I have not denied distributing A5
    37        leaflets, I have admitted it, I admitted it when I was in
    38        the witness box, the Plaintiffs have not actually called
    39        any evidence on the specific dates pleaded as far as I
    40        remember, and they did not question me on this, the
    41        specific dates, and as far as I can tell there is no
    42        evidence against Dave at all that they called on in
    43        relation to those dates, it should be borne in mind that
    44        they are the dates that the Plaintiffs are relying on, so
    45        they would have to prove that we published the short
    46        versions of the leaflets on those particular dates that are
    47        mentioned in those pleadings.
    48
    49        In number 2 on that page it says that it is to be inferred
    50        that we have caused to be published or been party to, and 
    51        so on, material published by the McLibel Support Campaign. 
    52        Now, we would say that it cannot be a matter of inference 
    53        that it has to be shown by McDonald's that we are
    54        responsible for specific individual publications, and that
    55        no evidence has been brought on that particular matter at
    56        all.  I was cross-examined about some later documents
    57        produced by the McLibel Support Campaign, and I do not
    58        remember being questioned about any pretrial documents or
    59        any documents that would be relevant to the counterclaim in
    60        terms of having been published before the Plaintiffs

Prev Next Index