Day 057 - 29 Nov 94 - Page 61


     
     1        other side or to interrogate the other side.
     2
     3   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  We are not actually dealing with that now,
     4        are we?
     5
     6   MR. ATKINSON:   No, not at all.  I am simply explaining that is
     7        why that last bit has gone in, but I did consider not
     8        putting it in at all for precisely the reason that your
     9        Lordship has seen.  What it is saying is this case is a
    10        case of inference, full stop, in one sense.  We are not
    11        able prior to discovery or interrogatories to go beyond
    12        that at this stage, but it is not doing any hardship to the
    13        Defendants because if there is more to it than that then
    14        they will know.  But we certainly are not going to be
    15        springing any surprises on them because we cannot give any
    16        further -----
    17
    18   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, should you not set out just what it is
    19        you say the Defendants did from which you seek to draw the
    20        inference?
    21
    22   MR. ATKINSON:   We have done that, in effect, by reference to
    23        the witness statements.  We have given the demonstrations
    24        with which we say they were connected, the dates, and we
    25        have said the Defendants are referred to the witness
    26        statement in yellow bundle II Publication and the
    27        photographs, the videos, in relation to their leading role
    28        in the campaign against McDonald's.
    29
    30        We have said that is the basis for our inference.  I mean,
    31        if you look at some of these photographs and these videos,
    32        there are not that many people there and, therefore, we
    33        would say and that is why we are saying one can draw an
    34        inference -- that may be right, it may be wrong -- but
    35        there are not very many people at these demonstrations.  We
    36        say again in relation to 1989/90 fairs at 33, we say much
    37        the same.  We also refer to their own answers to
    38        interrogatories.
    39
    40   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Page 9, what do you say about that?
    41
    42   MR. ATKINSON:   I was not quite sure -----
    43
    44   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It may not be a criticism of the Further and
    45        Better Particulars as such.  Ms. Steel said she wrote
    46        asking to provide details of when and where each leaflet
    47        was published.  I suppose what she might have done is ask
    48        for further and better particulars of the Further and
    49        Better Particulars in that respect, if she had been a
    50        lawyer, but one way or another this asks them, but are not 
    51        the Defendants entitled to know in respect of each leaflet 
    52        how they are said to be associated with it, in fact? 
    53
    54   MR. ATKINSON:   My Lord, the case here is again a matter of
    55        inference.  I do not know whether your Lordship is saying
    56        should we give chapter and verse on their particular
    57        involvement in the publication, or whether one is simply
    58        saying at what time in the year were these particular
    59        leaflets published?  In some cases one can see it says
    60        McLibel Support Campaign Summary, January 1994, it says it

Prev Next Index