Day 312 - 11 Dec 96 - Page 53


     
     1        leaflets on various occasions after service of the writs.
     2        The only relevant evidence is limited to the period before
     3        the writs were served and, hence, no weight should be
     4        attached to the videos and photographs taken on
     5        demonstrations after the writs were issued.  That would
     6        also apply to evidence from, I think it was Mr. Carroll who
     7        referred to later demonstrations where leaflets were handed
     8        out.
     9
    10        Obviously, it is a point we have made before but, after we
    11        were served with writs, we felt it was important to stand
    12        up to McDonald's attempts to bullying, at bullying.  So, it
    13        cannot be assumed from that action that we had, therefore,
    14        been involved with the distribution of fact sheets prior to
    15        service of the writs.
    16
    17        11: Furthermore, even if the court finds that by virtue of
    18        attendance at any of the anti-McDonald's fairs or
    19        demonstrations, for example, the Defendants were involved
    20        in the anti-McDonald's campaign, this cannot lead to a
    21        finding that they are therefore responsible for the
    22        publication of the leaflet complained of.  To do so would
    23        be contrary to the European Human Rights Convention, since
    24        it would place a restriction on the Defendants' right to
    25        freedom of expression and assembly if, in order to avoid
    26        liability for a particular leaflet, the individual had to
    27        avoid participation in any protest, action and/or campaign
    28        against McDonald's.
    29
    30        We would say that that applies even more so to the
    31        suggestion that mere involvement in London Greenpeace would
    32        make an individual responsible.  Clearly, if that was made
    33        as a finding in law, then this could deter all sorts of
    34        people from getting involved in any political organisation
    35        on the grounds that they may, by getting involved, become
    36        responsible for any leaflet produced by that organisation,
    37        whether or not they actually took part in it, and clearly
    38        if they are deterred from attending any political meetings
    39        or demonstrations, then that is an interference with their
    40        freedom of expression and assembly.
    41
    42        I am using "political" in the wider sense, not a "party
    43        political".
    44
    45   MR. MORRIS:  It would apply to any educational or charitable
    46        organisations.
    47
    48   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
    49
    50   MS. STEEL:   12: Finally, the Defendants cannot, as the
    51        Plaintiffs claim, be held liable for all onward publication
    52        that occurred after the 20th September, 1987.  By "onward"
    53        I mean not by London Greenpeace but by X Animal Rights
    54        Group or X Green Group, who purportedly originally got the
    55        fact sheet from London Greenpeace.  And the reason that we
    56        cannot be held liable is that it is not known, there having
    57        been no evidence on the subject, it is not known which
    58        onward publication was as a result of leaflets distributed
    59        after the 20th September, 1987, as opposed to being as a
    60        result of leaflets distributed in 1986 and up to September

Prev Next Index