Day 305 - 25 Nov 96 - Page 33


     
     1        filing cabinet.  When he was cross-examined about this, he
     2        actually accepted that it was possible that there were
     3        three or four copies of the fact sheet in the filing
     4        cabinet.  We would say that the clear evidence that there
     5        has been on that from Mr. Gravett and Ms. Laporte was that
     6        the fact sheet was out of stock, but there were some
     7        reference copies which were kept in the filing cabinet.
     8
     9        Just another point about the statement saying that
    10        the "What's wrong with McDonald's?" leaflets were kept in
    11        the boxes at the side of the room and the leaflet which was
    12        appended to that being the fact sheet -- I think that this
    13        really just demonstrates that people do not check things
    14        thoroughly; they trust their solicitors to get things right
    15        for them, and they assume that -- well, they just assume
    16        that solicitors are going to get it right; and that is
    17        demonstrated by the fact that when Mr. Rampton questioned
    18        Mr. Bishop about which leaflet he was referring to, he did
    19        state that he was referring to the small leaflet, not the
    20        fact sheet, which is not how the statement reads at all.
    21        That was on day 260, page 83, line 51.
    22
    23        I am not saying this to have a dig at the solicitors, by
    24        the way.  I am making the point that people, throughout
    25        their statements in this case, have referred to the "What's
    26        wrong with McDonald's?" leaflets and have then signed to
    27        say, "Yes, it is true that this was the leaflet that
    28        I picked up that is appended at appendix 1 or appendix 2",
    29        or something like that, and they do not actually think
    30        back: "Is this the right leaflet?"  They just assume: "Oh,
    31        well, it is called 'What's is wrong with McDonald's?'  It
    32        must be the right leaflet" -- even though there are several
    33        different versions all with the same title.  They are not
    34        necessarily aware of that or thinking about that, and so
    35        they just sign to say, "Yes, that is correct", without
    36        thinking about it.  That is why, as Mr. Morris said this
    37        morning, it is particularly important that the Plaintiffs
    38        show continuity of fact sheets, that they have got somebody
    39        being able to say, "I picked up this copy of the fact sheet
    40        on this date, and here it is.  I have put my initials on
    41        it, or something, and I handed it to the solicitor, and
    42        I can identify that this is the exactly the right copy."
    43        Otherwise, when you are just working on the fact that the
    44        title of the leaflet is "What's wrong with McDonald's?"
    45        and it has a cartoon on it, it is impossible to distinguish
    46        on that basis between the short or the long versions and
    47        between the versions produced by Veggies and any other
    48        number of groups around the country.
    49
    50   MR. MORRIS:  I think that is a very good -- and Helen has put it 
    51        perfectly, really -- example of what we were saying.  We 
    52        have to ask -- I am not saying it is deliberate -- but why 
    53        did have the solicitors put the wrong leaflet appended to
    54        Mr. Bishop's statement?  I am not saying it is deliberate
    55        or whatever, but it just shows there has to be an original
    56        copy in court and a pathway between that document and the
    57        original event verified by the witness.
    58
    59   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
    60

Prev Next Index