Day 261 - 12 Jun 96 - Page 64
1
2 MR. JUSTICE BELL: All this is comment in due course. I will
3 look at the whole of the evidence which is relevant to this
4 issue. I am not suggesting it will be so, but were the
5 situation, for instance, that there was evidence which was
6 credible -- let us get right away from this. Suppose there
7 was a body of people generally working together with what
8 appeared to be common aims who, at two meetings, were
9 handing out leaflets which made certain allegations against
10 the plaintiffs, and then they said that leaflets were
11 handed out at a third meeting and a fourth meeting; and the
12 evidence was very strong of them doing that at the first
13 and second meetings, it was pretty weak in relation to the
14 third meeting, and then medium in relation to the fourth.
15 If might be that the judge, looking at all of that, would
16 nevertheless hold that it was handed out at all four
17 meetings, on balance of probabilities, because even though
18 the evidence was weaker in relation to the third occasion
19 and the first or second, on balance of probabilities (which
20 is all that the judge is concerned with), he might
21 say: "Well the evidence is not as strong there, but I can
22 see a certain consistency of conduct, and I think it is
23 more likely than not that it was at that third meeting or
24 so."
25
26 I have particularly said that I am getting away from this
27 case. That is not a parable in relation to this case, but
28 it is an attempt to point out that one picks up a jigsaw,
29 one makes up a jigsaw of all the evidence and, at the end
30 of the day, there may be so many parts missing that you
31 cannot see the picture. At the end of the day, there may
32 be a lot of parts missing, but you can see that it is the
33 Mona Lisa. If it is such a recognisable picture, you may
34 be able to recognise it from one-fifth of the parts. If it
35 is not a very recognisable picture, you may need 90 per
36 cent of it. You just cannot make a general rule for it.
37 But what you are not to think is, because the evidence --
38 and, again, this is not directed at this -- because the
39 evidence is dodgy in relation to one specific, then that
40 specific is removed altogether; not necessarily. One has
41 to look at the whole picture.
42
43 I am not going to say any more about it. That is just the
44 benefit, if you choose to take it, of my experience in
45 litigation.
46
47 However that may be, if your case is going to be positively
48 that the leaflet complained of was not present or dealt
49 with in a way that the witness has suggested -- reliably,
50 you may think, or unreliably -- you should put it to him.
51
52 MR. MORRIS: (To the witness) Can you recall now which specific
53 McDonald's leaflets, anti-McDonald's leaflets, were at the
54 fair in October 1989?
55 A. No, I cannot.
56
57 MS. STEEL: OK. If we move on to the notes of 26th October,
58 please.
59
60 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Do you have the page?
