Day 305 - 25 Nov 96 - Page 20
1 rely on for our responsibility for distribution since the
2 case started of the fact sheet complained of; and it turned
3 out there was no evidence whatsoever of our responsibility,
4 that he had not seen us. In fact, he did not have anything
5 to connect us directly with the distribution of that
6 fact sheet. Therefore, we cannot rely upon the Plaintiffs'
7 solicitors just to make vague, unsubstantiated, untested
8 statements about what happened to various leaflets or did
9 not and who was responsible for them, because that evidence
10 has to be tested in court. When we tested Mr. Howes, it
11 turned out that he had no evidence whatsoever connecting us
12 with the distribution to a third party of the London
13 Greenpeace fact sheet since the case started.
14
15 That only emphasises how important it is that the
16 Plaintiffs have an obligation to prove, positively prove,
17 their case, and they have to do it with evidence given in
18 the witness box.
19
20 Just a few other general points. In the period that we are
21 talking about here, October 1989 onwards, for the period
22 when the agents were involved or coming to meetings, I do
23 not think there is a single piece of evidence of the
24 distribution of the fact sheet by anybody other than
25 themselves or Paul Gravett and Jane in dealing with
26 inquiries. The fact there may be X number on a shelf,
27 which may have been anything from between one and whatever,
28 some scores -- which may in fact have been copies of the
29 Veggies fact sheet, in any case, because no original from a
30 shelf was taken and brought to court and produced and
31 verified; and, as we know, the front cover of the Veggies
32 fact sheet is identical to the London Greenpeace
33 fact sheet.
34
35 So, the fact that there may be something that has been
36 described as a fact sheet (whichever version it was) on a
37 shelf is not evidence of publication; and the fact that
38 there may be a few library copies in a filing cabinet,
39 again, is not evidence of publication.
40
41 The only evidence of publication, apart from those admitted
42 by McDonald's agents themselves, that they are responsible
43 for, is from the answering of letters which, as we have
44 heard, I mean, it is possible -- but not proven by
45 McDonald's, because they have failed to bring any evidence
46 of the original documentation -- that some were taken to
47 the odd meeting here and there. Again, we would say that
48 has to be proven positively in the witness box with
49 original documents. But, in any event, how they got to a
50 meeting has not been established, if they did get to a
51 meeting, and the evidence was given that people sometimes
52 brought leaflets to a meeting themselves, I mean, on any
53 subject, or some old copies they might have had lying
54 around. They may have been brought to a meeting for the
55 purpose of being given to Mr. Gravett at the end of the
56 meeting, for his inquiries, for dealing with inquiries.
57
58 So, there is nothing during this period which not only
59 could link me with actual distribution, but with any kind
60 of indirect responsibility, through I have brought some
