Day 313 - 13 Dec 96 - Page 25
1 statement that London Greenpeace had ignored several --
2 London Greenpeace and the Defendants had ignored several --
3 letters sent by McDonald's asking them to desist in
4 publication of the fact sheet.
5
6 Now, apart from the fact that that leaflet actually says
7 that London Greenpeace replied to the letter written by
8 McDonald's solicitors, which would completely contradict
9 their claim, where is the evidence put forward in court
10 that anybody who was involved in producing the McDonald's
11 press releases or leaflets was thinking of that document
12 when they wrote the words "several letters" and "no reply
13 received"? If they were not thinking of that document
14 perhaps they would not have written those words and
15 obviously, bearing in mind that that document was dated
16 from 1988, or something like that, whenever it was, it was
17 several years prior to the publication of the McDonald's
18 press releases and leaflets, and no doubt it had been
19 buried in files somewhere and forgotten about.
20
21 The reality is that that was not the basis for their belief
22 as has been asserted.
23
24 This is a bit unfortunate, I have a reference here to tab
25 86 in the same bundle. I cannot actually remember what
26 this leaflet was, we have not got ours in court.
27
28 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Let us just look. It is McLibel support
29 campaign, McDonald's v London Greenpeace, and it is one
30 with the February stamp in the bottom right-hand corner.
31
32 MS. STEEL: Right. OK, I just read what I have written down
33 here.
34
35 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
36
37 MS. STEEL: Which is that the Plaintiffs have said that this is
38 most important. I do not know whether that means the most
39 important or just an important one. Just to say that
40 nobody referred to this as a motive for the press releases
41 and leaflets when they were giving evidence, not Mr.
42 Nicholson or Mr. Preston, and that it was produced
43 according to the index three years before the counterclaim
44 documents. So it was hardly likely to be the basis for
45 those documents. Actually, I remember which one it is now.
46
47 Plus, if it had been a response to a document produced
48 three years before, it would not be reasonable to make the
49 kind of response the Plaintiffs did three years later if
50 the attack of that specific nature had not been repeated in
51 the meantime. Furthermore on this point, there is no
52 evidence about who produced this leaflet and no evidence to
53 connect either myself or Mr. Morris to it. I mean,
54 obviously, that goes for just about all of the press
55 releases, and so on, that the Plaintiffs have said they are
56 relying on, except the ones they said they specifically put
57 to me in the witness box where, obviously, whatever I said
58 about a particular document, could be taken as relevant
59 evidence. I cannot remember which ones were put and which
60 ones were not, to be honest.
