Day 304 - 22 Nov 96 - Page 25
1 was still trying to find out who was in charge of the
2 organisation or at its heart. Effectively, that is a
3 recognition that there is not or there was not anybody in
4 control or running, you know, in charge of running the
5 organisation. That was day 261, page 29 line 6. He noted
6 that both myself and Mr. Morris had not attended meetings
7 for a long time, and on page 42 of the same day he
8 described both myself and Mr. Morris as "the so far distant
9 members".
10
11 Several of the inquiry agents or private investigators
12 hired by McDonald's spoke about core members, strong
13 personalities and regular attenders. It was very
14 noticeable that although there were assertions made in
15 their statements to the effect that myself and Mr. Morris
16 were the most vociferous, the contemporaneous notes did not
17 reflect that level of participation; secondly, that the
18 agents, or some of them certainly, had been instructed that
19 myself and Mr. Morris were core members and to look out for
20 us in particular. So that is going to influence their
21 perception of the way the group operated. And, thirdly,
22 bearing in mind that these assertions about us being
23 vociferous, and what have you, were made in their
24 statements and not in their notes, there was a danger that
25 in all likelihood, when they were making their statements
26 three years later, they were asked specifically about
27 myself and Mr. Morris. Really, that is just so obvious
28 because we were the only Defendants left in the case. So
29 that was what the Plaintiffs were interested in finding out
30 about. They would be asking the witnesses: "Do you
31 remember what Ms. Steel or Mr. Morris said? Did they take
32 part in this discussion?", and it is like -- well,
33 effectively, it results in prejudice by focusing attention
34 on particular individuals and there is a danger that undue
35 weight is being placed on observations and recollections
36 that have failed to warrant a mention in the
37 contemporaneous notes.
38
39 Even if it was the case that Mr. Morris and myself were
40 strong personalities, core members, or regular attenders,
41 there is still no evidence which alleges that either of us
42 on any occasion ever made any statements expressly aimed at
43 procuring or inciting other people who were present at the
44 meetings to participate in distributing fact sheets or even
45 in the campaign in general. The most that these assertions
46 of being vociferous do is say that, on a range of subjects,
47 we expressed our own personal opinions.
48
49 Surely, this case is not about imposing liability for being
50 articulate or opinionated or for being an anarchist. We
51 have a fundamental right, as defined by Article 10 of the
52 European Convention on Human Rights, to freedom of
53 expression and under Article 11 to freedom of association.
54 Really, we would submit that the very most that can be said
55 about these assertions made by the witnesses is that we are
56 people who express our views and opinions in an open forum.
57
58 It should be stressed and it should be absolutely clear
59 that neither of us can be made liable for the acts of
60 others solely on the basis that we are articulate in
