Day 313 - 13 Dec 96 - Page 35
1 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Just pause a moment.
2
3 MS. STEEL: It is from the animals film. I was going to come
4 to that, I was going to read it out because it is very
5 short, and then tell you... Because the form of Civil
6 Evidence Act notices is that you say what the statement is
7 and then you say who made it and in what circumstances.
8
9 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What is the notice in respect of?
10
11 MS. STEEL: It is in respect of a statement made on film by a
12 representative of McDonald's. In fact, I think we got the
13 identity of the person when Mr. Beavers was giving
14 evidence. It was shown as part of the animals film, which
15 is document 10 on the Defendants' supplementary list of
16 documents. I mean, I do not have to read it all out, but
17 just that for some reason it has been kind of forgotten
18 about as a piece of evidence and I wanted to point out that
19 it is something we did want to rely on.
20
21 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What I suggest is, in the course of the
22 afternoon get it copied, give a copy to Mrs. Brinley-Codd
23 so that she and Mr. Rampton know what it is and I will have
24 a copy as well.
25
26 MS. STEEL: Right.
27
28 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No doubt it is in the papers somewhere.
29
30 MS. STEEL: It is in the correspondence files, I think.
31
32 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Very well, but get me another copy anyway so
33 I make sure I have it in front of me.
34
35 MS. STEEL: OK.
36
37 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What are you going to go on to next?
38
39 MS. STEEL: I was going to deal with malice.
40
41 MR. JUSTICE BELL: This is in relation to counterclaim, is it?
42
43 MS. STEEL: No, it is in relation to the main claim. Sorry,
44 I have some pages to hand up but I am trying to find them.
45 (Handed). Right.
46
47 In relation to the law on malice. The Plaintiffs must show
48 that the Defendants individually were motivated by malice,
49 and there is a reference for that which is Egga v Viscount
50 Chelmsford, 1965, 1 Q.B. 248. Therefore, malice cannot be
51 inferred from matters contained in the leaflets produced by
52 London Greenpeace the McLibel support campaign or others,
53 unless the Plaintiffs can show actual evidence that the
54 Defendants themselves produced, authorised or distributed
55 the particular leaflet. The only exception to that would
56 be where an agreement with a particular document has been
57 expressly stated in open court, for example, whilst I was
58 being cross-examined where I indicated that I adopted the
59 viewpoints expressed.
60
