Day 255 - 23 May 96 - Page 27
1
2 Even if this cross-examination had any relevance to any of
3 the issues in the action, which I am bound to say I doubt,
4 I do invite your Lordship to bear in mind the Court of
5 Appeal's ruling in Freudiana Holdings in which they said
6 that it was the duty of counsel, and presumably litigants
7 in person as well, to concentrate on the real issues in the
8 case and not to spend large parts of the court time ----
9
10 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Why was all this put in the first place?
11 That has been one of the big problems in this case. So
12 much has been put in on McDonald's side which is then
13 questioned about and questioned by the Defendants.
14
15 MR. RAMPTON: I understand that.
16
17 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Both in oral evidence and in documentary
18 evidence.
19
20 MR. RAMPTON: I have tried to be very careful in
21 examination-in-chief and confine my witnesses to the
22 matters which I do conceive to be important in the case,
23 but certainly it may be that in making discovery we erred
24 on the side of generosity but, with respect, that does not
25 mean to say that it is right that this witness and your
26 Lordship should endure, or indeed us people sitting down
27 here, hours and hours of cross-examination about material
28 which really cannot in the end assist your Lordship in
29 deciding the outcome of this case.
30
31 MR. JUSTICE BELL: At the moment, the way I see it is it is put
32 in, you say, and I do not doubt that it was your motive for
33 putting it in, because I can see two possible points of
34 relevance: Firstly, it is suggested that some of it anyway
35 may have come from those who were involved in
36 London Greenpeace; secondly, I suppose you might say if you
37 need to justify taking proceedings over this leaflet, and
38 I do not see that you do, I mean either the leaflet is
39 seriously defamatory or it is not, but if you want to seek
40 to justify bringing these proceedings you can say, "Look,
41 there really was serious cause for concern because these
42 allegations, which you contend are unfounded, were getting
43 a wider and wider audience".
44
45 I can then see that it is fair game to the Defendants to
46 make the point if they want to say, "Well we thought
47 McDonald's were accepting certain allegations because they
48 did not take action on them" to make that point.
49
50 MR. RAMPTON: I agree with that but that does not lead them to
51 cross-examine Mr. Nicholson.
52
53 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I know. I do not think I can stop you going
54 through all of them if you choose to go through all of
55 them. I would suggest if you do choose to go through all
56 of them, now that you have put the essence of the points
57 you seek to make on various of these, if Mr. Nicholson just
58 says "I cannot remember that one", whether or not you
59 accept his answer, you accept it for the purposes of any
60 further cross-examination and leave it as it is.
