Day 263 - 14 Jun 96 - Page 19
1 relying on, distribution by London Greenpeace of these
2 leaflets.
3
4 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It seems to me that rather helps you, does it
5 not, that they are not actually relying upon activities
6 from September 1990 onwards within London Greenpeace as
7 observed by the inquiry agents. For all I know, if they
8 chose to call them, there is material that they could rely
9 on. But since they are not going to adduce any evidence
10 about it, I put the possibility right out of my mind. That
11 is to your advantage, is it not?
12
13 MS. STEEL: I would like to clarify something then, because if
14 the case is that they are not going to rely on any kind of
15 publication after the writs were served other than those
16 two occasions, be it of whatever kind of leaflet,
17 anti-McDonald's leaflet, the A5 -----
18
19 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No, I do not think that is their position.
20 They are certainly not relying upon any publication, as
21 I understand it, during the period of further cover by the
22 inquiry agents.
23
24 MS. STEEL: Well -----
25
26 MR. MORRIS: The point is that we can rely on it, in terms of
27 consent or the other matters which I dealt with that
28 I thought were relevant, anyway, and if the Plaintiffs are
29 going to rely on other material distributed by
30 London Greenpeace at later dates after September 1990, then
31 we are entitled to rely on the material that those agents
32 were involved or responsible for by their involvement, or
33 whatever. So, obviously, there has to be parity in the
34 argument.
35
36 MS. STEEL: In the defence to counterclaim on page 6, the
37 Plaintiffs have pleaded that:
38
39 "Since the service of writs the Defendants have continued
40 to distributes and thereby publish leaflets entitled
41 "What's wrong with McDonald's?", being shorter versions of
42 the leaflet complained of at paragraph 3 of the Statement
43 of Claim. The relevant particulars of distribution and
44 publication of the leaflets concerned are contained in the
45 further and better particulars of the further and better
46 particulars of the reply served pursuant to an order dated
47 16th December 1993, and the voluntary particulars and the
48 file of relevant leaflets served herewith."
49
50 The reference to the further and better particulars of the
51 reply is what I was referring to a moment ago, that
52 I thought I had.
53
54 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Do they actually cover any meetings or events
55 which could conceivably have been covered by inquiry
56 agents?
57
58 MS. STEEL: Yes. They covered 16th October 1990, where we know
59 Michelle Hooker was handing out anti-McDonald's leaflets,
60 outside the Head Office. But there are a number of other
