Day 306 - 26 Nov 96 - Page 40


     
     1
     2        Just another point on that thing about whether or not the
     3        proceedings were under way or being considered.
     4        Mr. Nicholson said that he asked Barlow Lyde and Gilbert to
     5        write letters to us, but where is the evidence that that
     6        was done?  There is none.  Wouldn't somebody who was
     7        seriously interested in finding other means of resolving a
     8        matter rather than going to court, would they not follow up
     9        on whether or not letters had been sent and, if so, what
    10        reply, you know, if any, had been received?   The fact that
    11        he did not follow it up indicates that either he never
    12        asked in the first place or that he was not seriously
    13        looking for other ways to resolve the matter rather than
    14        taking it through the courts.
    15
    16        I want to make some quick points, other points from
    17        Mr. Nicholson's first statement.  In paragraph 7 he said
    18        that -- he gave evidence that the London Greenpeace fair --
    19        sorry, the anti-McDonald's fair in 1988 was well attended
    20        and that the leaflet "What's wrong with McDonald's" was
    21        arranged on the stall.  Just to point out that he does not
    22        say there which "What's wrong with McDonald's" leaflet he
    23        is referring to, though later on in the next sentence he
    24        says:  "I observed many members of the public take this
    25        leaflet complained of and other leaflets on the table."
    26        That, again, sounds like something that would have been
    27        inserted in terms of legal speak by solicitors.
    28
    29        In paragraph 12 of his first statement he says:  "Since by
    30        this time, i.e. October 1989, my attempts to trace and
    31        identify members of the group had proved unsuccessful, and
    32        because it had been impossible to take effective steps to
    33        prevent repetition of the defamatory statements, I decided
    34        and was authorised on behalf of the Plaintiffs to instruct
    35        two firms of inquiry agents to seek to identify members of
    36        London Greenpeace", and so on.
    37
    38        The point is that that paragraph is untrue, that decision
    39        and authorisation to hire inquiry agents had been made in
    40        June 1989 from Mr. Nicholson's own evidence and that the
    41        firms had been instructed over two weeks before this picket
    42        took place; for example, we know that Mr. Pocklington
    43        attended the Hackney and Islington Animal Rights meeting on
    44        2nd October 1989, and for him to have attended that on
    45        McDonald's behalf the instructions must have been given
    46        before 2nd October.
    47
    48        One of the reasons that Mr. Nicholson gave for not
    49        instructing Mr. Carroll to take photographs of people
    50        handing out leaflets or fact sheets -- and this was day 
    51        258, page 55, line 46 and also on day 250, page 35, line 40 
    52        -- he said that he did not want anyone to know he had 
    53        started this action.  So he did not tell Mr. Carroll to
    54        take photographs of people distributing the fact sheet.  He
    55        was asking Mr. Carroll to take photographs of people
    56        distributing the fact sheet would mean that Mr. Carroll
    57        knew that Mr. Nicholson was starting the action, and he
    58        answered to that: "I just asked him to take photos of
    59        people involved", which does not answer the question at
    60        all.

Prev Next Index