Day 263 - 14 Jun 96 - Page 18


     
     1        two occasions of publication of the leaflet complained of
     2        which were relied on.
     3
     4   MR. RAMPTON:  That is right -- post-writ.  Since the defence of
     5        consent relates to publication of the leaflet complained
     6        of, the chain of the link between the inquiry agents and
     7        consent must be broken, because the first subsequent
     8        publication relied on is in court, in June 1994.
     9
    10   MS. STEEL:   Well, I am sorry if I got that slightly wrong, but
    11        I would like to make this point anyway, because we are not
    12        asking for these notes solely on the grounds of the consent
    13        argument; it is on the entire pleadings and relevance to
    14        everything which is in issue in this case with regard to
    15        publication.
    16
    17   MR. MORRIS:  Can I just comment on what Mr. Rampton just said,
    18        because if -----
    19
    20   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No.  It is put simply in this way, that no
    21        publication is relied upon of this leaflet for the purposes
    22        of anything which is in issue in this case, apart from
    23        whatever happened on 30th June 1994 and the Internet
    24        matter.
    25
    26        Now, Mr. Rampton explained why they were relied on, but why
    27        they were relied on was neither here nor there to his
    28        argument.  The point was that there is nothing which the
    29        private investigators can say about those two matters.
    30        There is no publication after September, after the service
    31        of the writ, apart from those two incidents, which is
    32        alleged at all.  As far as I am concerned, there was no
    33        publication by you, even on the Plaintiffs' version of
    34        matters, after September 1990 therefore, which the inquiry
    35        agents can comment on at all.  It does not matter whether
    36        it is in relation to the question of publication; it does
    37        not matter whether it is in relation to the question of
    38        consent to publication; it does not matter whether it is in
    39        relation to motive for publication, i.e. malice.  There
    40        just is no publication.
    41
    42   MS. STEEL:   I thought I had all the pleadings I needed, and
    43        I do not.  I am pretty sure that in the reply to the
    44        defence the Plaintiffs alleged that they would be relying
    45        on publication of subsequent leaflets as proof of the
    46        publication of the fact sheet complained of.
    47
    48   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Well, I mean, I can only say that Mr. Rampton
    49        in open court said what he did yesterday.
    50 
    51   MS. STEEL:   Well, if I could just refer you anyway to the ----- 
    52 
    53   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  If you say there is another publication or
    54        alleged publication -----
    55
    56   MS. STEEL:  Not of the fact sheet complained of.  But the point
    57        is that here we have Michelle Hooker, as one person we know
    58        was distributing the A5 "What's wrong with McDonald's?"
    59        leaflets after the date of the writ, and it is the
    60        distribution of these leaflets which the Plaintiff is

Prev Next Index