Day 305 - 25 Nov 96 - Page 16
1 photocopying later on, the Plaintiffs, it seems to me, say
2 that anyone who was involved in production in '86 or '87,
3 with a view to distribution of this leaflet as and when the
4 occasion arose, is in fact responsible in law for those
5 publications. Just let me finish. If I think there were
6 publications between September 1987 and September 1990,
7 then they are responsible for those.
8
9 I am not seeking to argue with you. What I am trying to do
10 is give you the opportunity ---
11
12 MR. MORRIS: We would not accept -----
13
14 MR. JUSTICE BELL: -- to put your points about that.
15
16 MR. MORRIS: We reserve our position, but we would not accept
17 that that is what the law is. If the allegation is purely
18 one of production, in terms of an act, then that took place
19 outside the limitation period -- if, indeed, it did, which
20 it did not, but let us assume it did -- then it should not
21 apply; the resultant publication or distribution falling
22 inside the limitation period, then we would say we do not
23 accept that that would be the basis of a cause of action.
24
25 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Let us have the five-minute break there, and
26 then you can carry on.
27
28 (Short Adjournment)
29
30 MR. MORRIS: Looking at the period from 1987 to 1989, the only
31 evidence until October 1989 is from our witnesses about
32 what happened in London Greenpeace or at meetings, or
33 whatever. As far as myself is concerned, there is not one
34 scrap of evidence that I was involved in the
35 anti-McDonald's activities that came up at meetings. In
36 fact, the evidence is to the contrary. The evidence is
37 that my involvement in the group or in meetings at all was
38 tailing off during that period and that I was, effectively,
39 just an occasional visitor as from about the Summer of 1989
40 onwards, something like that.
41
42 So, I would say there is nil evidence at all of any
43 responsibility for publication in that period for me, my
44 responsibility for that publication. The burden of proof
45 is on the Plaintiffs.
46
47 During the period of October 1989 to the service of writs,
48 I was clearly not active with London Greenpeace, although
49 I may have made the odd visit from time to time; and that
50 those were for two reasons -- this is effectively the
51 evidence both from our witnesses and, indeed, the
52 Plaintiffs' witnesses in general -- and the reasons were
53 partly personal reasons, because of my domestic
54 circumstances, and partly political reasons. For example,
55 one of the things I have expressed dissatisfaction with the
56 group about was the time that the group -- was, really, the
57 anti-McDonald's campaign. I had expressed dissatisfaction
58 with the anti-McDonald's campaign and argued against the
59 fair being an anti-McDonald's fair, on the few occasions
60 I visited meetings.
