Day 057 - 29 Nov 94 - Page 61
1 other side or to interrogate the other side.
2
3 MR. JUSTICE BELL: We are not actually dealing with that now,
4 are we?
5
6 MR. ATKINSON: No, not at all. I am simply explaining that is
7 why that last bit has gone in, but I did consider not
8 putting it in at all for precisely the reason that your
9 Lordship has seen. What it is saying is this case is a
10 case of inference, full stop, in one sense. We are not
11 able prior to discovery or interrogatories to go beyond
12 that at this stage, but it is not doing any hardship to the
13 Defendants because if there is more to it than that then
14 they will know. But we certainly are not going to be
15 springing any surprises on them because we cannot give any
16 further -----
17
18 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes, should you not set out just what it is
19 you say the Defendants did from which you seek to draw the
20 inference?
21
22 MR. ATKINSON: We have done that, in effect, by reference to
23 the witness statements. We have given the demonstrations
24 with which we say they were connected, the dates, and we
25 have said the Defendants are referred to the witness
26 statement in yellow bundle II Publication and the
27 photographs, the videos, in relation to their leading role
28 in the campaign against McDonald's.
29
30 We have said that is the basis for our inference. I mean,
31 if you look at some of these photographs and these videos,
32 there are not that many people there and, therefore, we
33 would say and that is why we are saying one can draw an
34 inference -- that may be right, it may be wrong -- but
35 there are not very many people at these demonstrations. We
36 say again in relation to 1989/90 fairs at 33, we say much
37 the same. We also refer to their own answers to
38 interrogatories.
39
40 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Page 9, what do you say about that?
41
42 MR. ATKINSON: I was not quite sure -----
43
44 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It may not be a criticism of the Further and
45 Better Particulars as such. Ms. Steel said she wrote
46 asking to provide details of when and where each leaflet
47 was published. I suppose what she might have done is ask
48 for further and better particulars of the Further and
49 Better Particulars in that respect, if she had been a
50 lawyer, but one way or another this asks them, but are not
51 the Defendants entitled to know in respect of each leaflet
52 how they are said to be associated with it, in fact?
53
54 MR. ATKINSON: My Lord, the case here is again a matter of
55 inference. I do not know whether your Lordship is saying
56 should we give chapter and verse on their particular
57 involvement in the publication, or whether one is simply
58 saying at what time in the year were these particular
59 leaflets published? In some cases one can see it says
60 McLibel Support Campaign Summary, January 1994, it says it
