Day 262 - 13 Jun 96 - Page 42
1 complained of.
2
3 Those are not publications upon which we do or can seek an
4 award of damages, since they postdate the writ. They are,
5 however, quite obviously, fuel for an allegation of malice
6 and, much more important than that perhaps, for the claim
7 for an injunction.
8
9 MR. JUSTICE BELL: For the?
10
11 MR. RAMPTON: Claim for the injunction, which is, after all, a
12 principal feature of this case.
13
14 But apart from those two occasions, both of which have been
15 pleaded, we do not make any claim that the leaflet
16 complained of was distributed by or on behalf of the
17 Defendants after the date of the issue of the writ. One
18 very good reason for that is that, so far as we know, apart
19 from those two occasions, the group ceased distribution of
20 the leaflet complained of following service of the writs.
21
22 My Lord, what follows, in our submission, from that is
23 this, that since the amended defence is a defence of
24 consent or leave and licence to publication of the words
25 complained of, events occurring at London Greenpeace
26 meetings after the issue of the writ, whether or not
27 inquiry agents were present, have no relevance to the
28 amended defence, since one cannot be taken to consent to
29 something which was not then any longer happening.
30
31 My Lord, I say one further word about relevance, and I will
32 move on, if I may, to dominant purpose. Ms. Steel, in the
33 middle of her cross-examination this morning, suggested
34 that notes of occasions when McDonald's was not discussed,
35 or when neither she nor Mr. Morris were present, might
36 still be relevant to show what I think she called the
37 overall picture. I do not, myself, actually understand
38 what she means by "the overall picture", and I say that for
39 this reason. We are not concerned, and we submit that
40 your Lordship is not concerned, with the overall nature of
41 the group's activities. We are not concerned on our side
42 of the court, and we do not believe your Lordship should be
43 concerned -- as I think I said the other day -- with what
44 other activities the group were interested in, what else it
45 did. We are not even concerned, through 1990, with what
46 proportion of the group's activity was devoted to
47 McDonald's. The only issue with which we believe this case
48 is concerned is the extent (if any) to which the McDonald's
49 campaign was continuing up to the date of the issue of the
50 writs, and, if it was, even to some small extent, to what
51 extent it could ever be said that the Plaintiffs had
52 consented to that continuation, in so far as that
53 continuation involved the continued distribution of the
54 leaflet complained of.
55
56 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Just pause a moment. (Pause)
57
58 MR. RAMPTON: Of course, if there were other occasions on which
59 members of the group -- it might be the Defendants, it
60 might be some other regular attender -- occasions, that is
