Day 307 - 27 Nov 96 - Page 26


     
     1        There is no evidence.  I think I was only questioned about
     2        one press article, which I believe was the article that
     3        appeared in The Guardian women's page, which, from memory,
     4        was about a year after the trial started and so would not
     5        be any kind of grounds whatsoever for the publication of
     6        these press releases and leaflets over a year before.
     7
     8        It was entirely Mr. Rampton's choice what he decided to
     9        cross-examine me about, he could have asked me about all
    10        the documents, all the leaflets and press releases and
    11        newspaper articles which appeared in the counterclaim
    12        bundles in order to try and elicit evidence of my
    13        involvement with those, but he chose not to do so.
    14        Therefore, there is no evidence to connect either myself or
    15        Mr. Morris to all those documents which are in the
    16        bundles.  I mean, obviously, when I am referring to all of
    17        them, I am referring to any of them.  I hope that is so
    18        obvious it does not need to be said.  But...
    19
    20   MR. MORRIS:   Can I say on that last point that it was said that
    21        the mere fact, even though there is no evidence to connect
    22        us with any of those documents at all, that something has
    23        been written has been said is not evidence of publication,
    24        which is a point you made yourself last week, and the
    25        Plaintiffs would have to show how any of those documents
    26        they relied on was indeed actually published.
    27
    28   MS. STEEL:   If I can just say in relation to some of the
    29        articles that have appeared in the media, that there is no
    30        evidence to connect us to them, and some of them I did not
    31        speak to them.  For example, one of the press articles
    32        which the Plaintiffs are relying on is a radio interview
    33        between -- well, it is Miss Edie Bensilum on behalf of
    34        McDonald's UK being interviewed about the trial, and we do
    35        not even get a mention.  Well, obviously, we must be
    36        referred to, but we are not part of that radio interview,
    37        so how can the Plaintiffs, how can McDonald's, possibly say
    38        that we were responsible for procuring that radio
    39        interview?   It is just ridiculous.  I cannot actually
    40        remember -- Oh, yes, it is a broadcast report LBC News
    41        Talk, 18th April 1994, 8.32, and the news reader was Sue
    42        Carpenter, and she spoke briefly to mention about the
    43        provisional trial date.  That was when the trial was
    44        supposed to be starting at that time.  She was just
    45        introducing that fact.  The only other person that spoke
    46        was Edie Bensilum.  So, you know, it is just ridiculous to
    47        assume that because an article is about this case we are
    48        responsible for it having been published.
    49
    50   MR. MORRIS:   Can I just say, on that document, it says, and 
    51        this is on LBC, April 1994, "McDonald's say a leaflet 
    52        produced by Helen Steel and Dave Morris of London 
    53        Greenpeace made false claims".  Well, that is obviously a
    54        reference to the press release.
    55
    56   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Where is that?
    57
    58   MR. MORRIS:   I have not got a page.  I do not know if -- it is
    59        actually the 18th April.  There is a little handwritten 33,
    60        bottom left-hand corner; there is a series of media

Prev Next Index