Day 261 - 12 Jun 96 - Page 72


     
     1        this.  In fact, I have not understood that, so far as
     2        McDonald's is concerned, there is any dispute that
     3        London Greenpeace was interested in a number of
     4        activities.  There may be an issue, although for all I know
     5        it may turn out to be marginal as to just how big a place
     6        McDonald's had in the activities.  The only real issue, as
     7        I understand it, is whether the anti-McDonald's campaign,
     8        if there was such a campaign, was a continuing subject of
     9        some interest.
    10
    11   MS. STEEL:  I think it was just because-- actually, I do not
    12        know if it was at a pretrial hearing, I think it may have
    13        been at some stage during the trial Mr. Rampton said
    14        something about, when I said about being involved with the
    15        IMF campaign Mr. Rampton seemed to make some sort of
    16        suggestion as though that was something new and the group
    17        had not been -- you know, that was what was being taken
    18        over from McDonald's.
    19
    20   MR. RAMPTON:  I do not recall saying any such thing.  I am
    21        concerned in this case solely on behalf of McDonald's in
    22        the context of this case.  I do not give a fig for Unilever
    23        or the IMF or any other body, poll tax, animal rights, or
    24        anything else these people may have been interested in.  My
    25        only concern, so far as this case is concerned in this
    26        aspect, is, first, whether these Defendants were liable for
    27        having published the words complained of from three years
    28        before the issue of the writ up until 20th September, 1990
    29        and, second, the more narrow question, whether the
    30        anti-McDonald's campaign continued whether as a feature of
    31        that campaign -- and this is what is important -- the words
    32        complained of continued to be distributed, however
    33        sporadically, up until the issue of the writ, and, third,
    34        if that was the case, whether the presence of the inquiry
    35        agents amongst the group had any bearing on the
    36        continuation of that campaign with that particular feature
    37        of it.
    38
    39        As I see it, my Lord, those are the only relevant questions
    40        and hours of cross-examination devoted to the group's other
    41        interests I really do not see the point of.
    42
    43   MS. STEEL:   Well, I have my suspicions that Mr. Rampton is not
    44        going to turn around and say something different -----
    45
    46   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  If concentrating on something else excludes
    47        you from any campaign against McDonald's, then I can see
    48        the relevance.  But they are not necessarily mutually
    49        exclusive, and on that basis I have not understood it to be
    50        challenged that you were interested in other things which 
    51        may have been going on for some time. 
    52 
    53   MS. STEEL:   Well, it is my recollection -----
    54
    55   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It is worth mentioning it now because it has
    56        been a feature of your cross-examination and, quite
    57        frankly, I do not think we need spend time on it, save
    58        insofar as you want to suggest that at any particular time
    59        it excluded you from any anti-McDonald's campaign which may
    60        have been going on, or save insofar as you want to suggest

Prev Next Index