Day 304 - 22 Nov 96 - Page 25


     
     1        was still trying to find out who was in charge of the
     2        organisation or at its heart.  Effectively, that is a
     3        recognition that there is not or there was not anybody in
     4        control or running, you know, in charge of running the
     5        organisation.  That was day 261, page 29 line 6.  He noted
     6        that both myself and Mr. Morris had not attended meetings
     7        for a long time, and on page 42 of the same day he
     8        described both myself and Mr. Morris as "the so far distant
     9        members".
    10
    11        Several of the inquiry agents or private investigators
    12        hired by McDonald's spoke about core members, strong
    13        personalities and regular attenders.  It was very
    14        noticeable that although there were assertions made in
    15        their statements to the effect that myself and Mr. Morris
    16        were the most vociferous, the contemporaneous notes did not
    17        reflect that level of participation; secondly, that the
    18        agents, or some of them certainly, had been instructed that
    19        myself and Mr. Morris were core members and to look out for
    20        us in particular.  So that is going to influence their
    21        perception of the way the group operated.  And, thirdly,
    22        bearing in mind that these assertions about us being
    23        vociferous, and what have you, were made in their
    24        statements and not in their notes, there was a danger that
    25        in all likelihood, when they were making their statements
    26        three years later, they were asked specifically about
    27        myself and Mr. Morris.  Really, that is just so obvious
    28        because we were the only Defendants left in the case.  So
    29        that was what the Plaintiffs were interested in finding out
    30        about.  They would be asking the witnesses: "Do you
    31        remember what Ms. Steel or Mr. Morris said?  Did they take
    32        part in this discussion?", and it is like -- well,
    33        effectively, it results in prejudice by focusing attention
    34        on particular individuals and there is a danger that undue
    35        weight is being placed on observations and recollections
    36        that have failed to warrant a mention in the
    37        contemporaneous notes.
    38
    39        Even if it was the case that Mr. Morris and myself were
    40        strong personalities, core members, or regular attenders,
    41        there is still no evidence which alleges that either of us
    42        on any occasion ever made any statements expressly aimed at
    43        procuring or inciting other people who were present at the
    44        meetings to participate in distributing fact sheets or even
    45        in the campaign in general.  The most that these assertions
    46        of being vociferous do is say that, on a range of subjects,
    47        we expressed our own personal opinions.
    48
    49        Surely, this case is not about imposing liability for being
    50        articulate or opinionated or for being an anarchist.  We 
    51        have a fundamental right, as defined by Article 10 of the 
    52        European Convention on Human Rights, to freedom of 
    53        expression and under Article 11 to freedom of association.
    54        Really, we would submit that the very most that can be said
    55        about these assertions made by the witnesses is that we are
    56        people who express our views and opinions in an open forum.
    57
    58        It should be stressed and it should be absolutely clear
    59        that neither of us can be made liable for the acts of
    60        others solely on the basis that we are articulate in

Prev Next Index