Day 306 - 26 Nov 96 - Page 34


     
     1        which I obtained on that date".
     2
     3   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   What he says in paragraph 12 of his
     4        statement, which he averred in evidence, was during the two
     5        or three hours they were present he observed a number of
     6        members of the group hand out the leaflet complained of,
     7         'What's wrong with McDonald's'.  He does not say that he
     8        took a copy and therefore this is it, but he identifies the
     9        leaflet which he says he saw being handed out by saying it
    10        is the same, in effect, as TEC2.  You can say that I should
    11        not attach weight to that.  I will listen to your arguments
    12        on it, but that is what his evidence is.
    13
    14   MS. STEEL:   I think the point is, as we have demonstrated
    15        yesterday and this morning, Mr. Morris recorded another
    16        example, that witnesses are signing to say this is the
    17        leaflet that they are referring to when, in reality, they
    18        do not actually know which leaflet they are referring to;
    19        they are just going on the fact that it was called 'What's
    20        wrong with McDonald's', and they may or may not remember
    21        the graphics, or whatever.
    22
    23        The point is that in such a case as this, where there are
    24        so many different leaflets all with exactly the same title
    25        and all of which have the graphic, it is essential for the
    26        Plaintiffs to show and prove that a specific copy was
    27        obtained by a specific person on a specific date, and here
    28        is the copy in court which they are producing and
    29        confirming is the copy that they obtained on that date.
    30
    31   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Yes.
    32
    33   MR. MORRIS:   Can I just add one point?  If someone says this is
    34        the leaflet complained of, there is no indication there
    35        that it is the leaflet complained of.  It is only something
    36        which has been characterised as the leaflet complained of.
    37        What I am saying is, that person may not have known on that
    38        picket what the leaflet complained of was going to be, or
    39        at any other event.
    40
    41   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Yes, except the statement is made in June
    42        1993, after these proceedings were started.
    43
    44   MR. MORRIS:   It is based upon notes that they made.  Almost all
    45        the witnesses, and certainly the solicitors, have assumed
    46        that when someone says, 'What's wrong with McDonald's'
    47        leaflet, they mean the leaflet complained of.  The whole
    48        thing is a bit of a -----
    49
    50   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Yes.  Anyway, carry on with what you want to 
    51        say about it. 
    52 
    53   MS. STEEL:   On day 237, page 13, line 4, Mr. Carroll said that
    54        the copies of the documents were not handed to him at the
    55        picket but were passed to him over the following days, and,
    56        most importantly in this case, on day 237, page 18, line
    57        20, Mr. Carroll admitted that he had no idea how these
    58        copies had been obtained; he did not ask anybody about
    59        where they had got them from.  So there is absolutely no
    60        evidence that they were obtained on the demonstration on

Prev Next Index