Day 305 - 25 Nov 96 - Page 18
1 would have engaged members of London -- not members,
2 supporters, activists, whatever -- of London Greenpeace
3 scores of times in pubs and whatever, and they did not
4 manage to get a single piece of evidence to back up their
5 case on my responsibility for publication. I think that is
6 highly significant, because of course it is the truth.
7
8 I am getting my notes together, they are very confusing.
9 There are references dotted throughout the Plaintiffs'
10 evidence about anti-McDonald's leaflets. As we know, in
11 this case, that could mean anything; it could mean the
12 Veggies leaflet, of which there were large and small
13 types -- I mean, there was the fact sheet and there was A5
14 types; there was a London Greenpeace fact sheet; there were
15 various versions of an A5 smaller leaflet, smaller in text
16 but not in the actual shape; and, indeed, there were other
17 leaflets floating about of a similar nature. Mr. Rampton
18 handed one up only last Friday, when he was purporting to
19 give you the London Greenpeace A5 leaflet. As far as we
20 can see, he gave you the original which was, as we heard
21 from Mr. Gravett, produced by Hackney and Islington Animal
22 Rights.
23
24 MR. JUSTICE BELL: The one Mr. Rampton handed up was one which
25 was a Manchester animals group. But it was just that there
26 are clearly various types of A5 leaflet. But you correct
27 me if I am wrong, because I thought that what we have
28 called the A5 leaflet is text bearing, to some extent, from
29 time to time, but essentially it had "What's wrong with
30 McDonald's?" and then the cartoon, which covered the top
31 half of the front page, and then the text started, and it
32 contained some of the same sort of messages as the fact
33 sheet did on the remainder of the front page and on the
34 back.
35
36 MR. MORRIS: Yes.
37
38 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That, I thought, was a leaflet which Veggies
39 originally produced probably in 1987.
40
41 MR. MORRIS: I mean, all I can say is that that emphasises what
42 I was trying to say. You have one that was actually
43 produced in Manchester. The A5 leaflets, there were a
44 number of different versions produced by a number of
45 different groups, and that is not the leaflet, the
46 fact sheet, complained of.
47
48 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No.
49
50 MR. MORRIS: But it comes under what you might call in the
51 evidence "anti-McDonald's leaflets", which, even in this
52 court after a number of years, there is still confusion
53 even now over who is referring to which leaflet: when,
54 produced by whom, what size is it, is it the same as this,
55 what is the text? Therefore, whenever the agents of
56 McDonald's have referred to anti-McDonald's leaflets,
57 unless they have been able to specifically identify and
58 retain a copy of the London Greenpeace fact sheet, then we
59 cannot assume or even infer that it is the London
60 Greenpeace fact sheet complained of. It would be unsafe to
