Day 246 - 09 May 96 - Page 24


     
     1        injunction to restrain publication of the truth.  That is
     2        not the law in this country.
     3
     4   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No, well leave it there.  Just make a mental
     5        note of this:   If I do find that any part of this leaflet
     6        is defamatory, and if Mr. Rampton, on the back of any such
     7        finding, asks me to make an order forbidding either you or
     8        Ms. Steel to distribute it -- all this would only arise
     9        anyway if I had found that you had had some part in the
    10        publication -- then there is an element of discretion in
    11        the judge as to whether he makes an order or not.
    12
    13        It is possible that if we ever get to that stage, then you
    14        will have arguments to put as to the exercise of my
    15        discretion but, unhappily, we are still a long way away
    16        from that situation and I do not think it is productive
    17        really to question Mr. Preston about it any further.  We
    18        will take our 5-minute break there.
    19
    20                         (Short adjournment)
    21
    22   MS. STEEL:  If we go to page 9 of these documents, I am not
    23        entirely sure that these are in the right order.   No, they
    24        are not.  I do not know whether the Plaintiffs know or not,
    25        but it is a McDonald's London Greenpeace Discussion Paper,
    26        again from Scope Communications Management.  It talks about
    27        the PR brainstorm on Monday, 28th February, which I think
    28        is the same one but -- no, it must be a later one.
    29
    30   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  A slightly unusual use of the word
    31        "brainstorm but there we are.
    32
    33   MS. STEEL:  It is definitely a later meeting actually.  Were you
    34        present at that brainstorm or whatever?
    35        A.  Not that I can recall.
    36
    37   Q.   Do you know who was there?
    38        A.  No.  I can surmise from this that Scope must have been
    39        and I imagine some of our communications people and
    40        possibly legal counsel, but I am only guessing; I do not
    41        know.
    42
    43   Q.   Do you know whether Sid Nicholson attended all these
    44        meetings or at least most of them?
    45        A.  I imagine he attended some.  Whether it is most or all,
    46        I am afraid I do not know.
    47
    48   Q.   The document says:
    49
    50        "The following points are taken in no order of priority but 
    51        should be discussed I believe." 
    52 
    53        Under No. 1:
    54
    55        "How do we respond to media inquiries in detail before the
    56        case starts regarding the following questions:
    57
    58        Why McDonald's is bringing the case?
    59
    60        What will it do with damages that are awarded if the case

Prev Next Index