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
