Day 306 - 26 Nov 96 - Page 17
1
2 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Obviously, it is reasonable to have some
3 discussion in court, but as quietly as possible. Right. A
4 leaflet was described to him, but he did not say more about
5 it?
6
7 MR. MORRIS: No. Mr. Rampton showed him, I think, the fact
8 sheet and he said that he thinks he would have seen it.
9 The bottom of page 28. He thinks he would have seen it
10 before going to any meetings, and that his instructions had
11 included to identify and establish the authors of the
12 multi-sided leaflet.
13
14 Then on page 29, "Do you remember if you ever took one away
15 from those meetings?" Answer, "Yes, I would have done."
16 He did say in the middle of page 29 that he and his
17 colleagues referred to the fact sheet as the multi-sided
18 fact sheet. Then Mr. Rampton said, line 46, "Who referred
19 to it as a fact sheet?" Answer, "My principals, myself, I
20 believe the Defendants would have." This is line 47.
21
22 So, presumably, if he is referring to the fact sheet then
23 he would have specified that in his notes because he says
24 that his principals referred to it as that and that he was
25 instructed before he started, and that he and his
26 colleagues referred to it as a multi-sided fact sheet. So
27 he does not mention that, we would say then it is not the
28 same document. Of course, if he does refer to it then he
29 would have to distinguish whether it was the Veggies
30 version or the London Greenpeace version for it to be of
31 compelling, or even balance of probabilities, the words
32 complained of, or the leaflet complained of.
33
34 He does say at the top of page 32, line 14, that the
35 standard practice at monthly meetings was for numerous
36 leaflets to be taken by a member of London Greenpeace and,
37 of course, that relates to what Mr. Russell said about
38 picking up copies of all the leaflets that are on the
39 table, there would have been numerous different types of
40 leaflets.
41
42 1st March -- sorry, no. Moving to cross-examination now.
43 His instructions on page 45, lines 48 to 50, were to do
44 those things I have already said, plus also to identify
45 simply those involved with the anti-McDonald's campaign.
46 So he had in his mind the photographs, the core members
47 instructions, that he was expected to find and looking, we
48 would say, to link those who he had been told about with
49 his keenness to identify those involved with the
50 anti-McDonald's campaign.
51
52 Then he says on page 46, line 32, "The instructions were to
53 establish or identify those involved with the group, and/or
54 where the leaflets, particularly the fact sheet complained
55 of, where that was mentioned." So, here we have an
56 absolute clear as day indication that the fact sheet
57 complained of was something that was particularly needed to
58 be identified and, therefore, where he does not identify it
59 specifically in the notes, then it would not be that, and
60 if he does identify it specifically, there needs to be
