Day 304 - 22 Nov 96 - Page 29
1 being available at the meeting. So, effectively, there is
2 no real evidence that the fact sheet was available at that
3 meeting. The only evidence there was was from Mr. Clare,
4 who later admitted during cross-examination that he was not
5 in a position to state that the fact sheet had been
6 available at that meeting.
7
8 Moving on to 1st March 1990, in his statement
9 Mr. Pocklington had said -- this is page 5 of his
10 statement, at paragraph 18 -- that: "Before I arrived at
11 the meeting, Mr. Morris and others had been answering
12 letters including a range of leaflets, including the
13 anti-McDonald's leaflet."
14
15 But, although a copy of the fact sheet had been appended to
16 the statement that he made three years after the event,
17 during cross-examination, he did state that he had no
18 recollection of which version of the leaflet had been sent
19 out. That was day 262, page 30, line 1. The
20 contemporaneous notes made of that meeting did not specify
21 which leaflet had been enclosed; and it should be borne in
22 mind that the A5 leaflet was also referred to as an
23 anti-McDonald's leaflet.
24
25 Obviously, that witness also said that he could not say
26 whether or not Mr. Morris had actually been answering the
27 letters or not and where they had been going to, and so on;
28 but Mr. Morris is going to go into more detail about that
29 on Monday.
30
31 MR. MORRIS: Or even if they were posted. I don't think there
32 was any evidence on that.
33
34 MS. STEEL: Alan Clare was also present on that date, but there
35 was no evidence from him regarding distribution of the fact
36 sheet or putting it in envelopes, or whatever, on that
37 occasion.
38
39 So, effectively, again, there is no proper evidence which
40 you could rely on as a basis for finding that the fact
41 sheet had been distributed on that date.
42
43 26th April 1990 -- this was the evidence of Mr. Russell,
44 Jack Russell. He asserted that the fact sheet had been
45 available at this meeting and that he had taken away a copy
46 of the fact sheet. That was in his statement, but it was
47 not specified in the notes -- well, it was not specified in
48 the report which he provided to the King's Investigation
49 Bureau, which was supplied to McDonald's; and we have to
50 ask: where is the fact sheet that was collected, according
51 to him?
52
53 Mr. Rampton conceded that exhibit JR/2 was not relied upon
54 as the leaflet that was collected on that day. That was at
55 day 263, page 37, line 11. So, the Plaintiffs are
56 accepting that the leaflets that were appended at JR/2 were
57 not the leaflets picked up on that day. Therefore, what
58 and where is the proof of publication on that date? It is
59 not proof of publication to append a leaflet to a statement
60 made three years after the meeting, where it is accepted
