Day 307 - 27 Nov 96 - Page 29
1 which it is alleged that you distributed, contains lies as
2 well as the other material. Whether or not published
3 before the proceedings were commenced or afterwards, you
4 were therefore responsible for lies, as I understand it.
5 Your point may be right. You may say it is suggesting that
6 you continued to lie, and that may be the significance, or
7 possible significance, of other material -- for instance,
8 shorter leaflets -- in addition to the leaflet complained
9 of.
10
11 It has been helpful for you to go through the pleadings,
12 and I have to look at them, but you do not have to go
13 through them with a fine toothcomb. At the end of the day,
14 I have just got to see what has been proved, if anything,
15 and to what extent it matches, if at all, any defamatory
16 statement in the press release, the Background Briefing and
17 the leaflet to customers.
18
19 MS. STEEL: OK. It just appeared to me they were inferring in
20 there it was publication after the service of writs, but I
21 will leave it there, anyway. The little (3) on that page,
22 again, they have not specified whether they are saying that
23 we deliberately or recklessly deceived the public. So, we
24 do not know what their case is going to be on that. So it
25 is very difficult for me to say.
26
27 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I think it is put in the alternative. They
28 appear to me to be saying you did it intentionally, and if
29 I am not satisfied that you did it intentionally, you
30 certainly did it recklessly. I think that is what it
31 says. As you say, one has to ask whether recklessness is
32 enough for any kind of justification, if it be proved.
33
34 MS. STEEL: OK. Going on to number (5), which is still a
35 particular of justification: "The Defendants have, as
36 members and representatives of London Greenpeace,
37 deliberately ignored several letters sent by McDonald's
38 solicitors since 1984 advising them that the leaflet
39 'What's wrong with McDonald's' was defamatory."
40
41 How can they say that we have deliberately ignored several
42 letters, bearing in mind that their pleading about the
43 meaning was only that they referred to two letters. That
44 was on page 3, paragraph C. We would say that this
45 statement is simply not justified. There is no evidence of
46 any letters, other than one written in 1984, about a
47 different leaflet and one in September 1990, which enclosed
48 the writ. There is no evidence in this case that either of
49 us were involved in the group in 1984 at the time when this
50 letter arrived and, therefore, could be said to have
51 ignored the letter.
52
53 MR. JUSTICE BELL: There was a suggestion, was there not, from
54 Mr. Nicholson, that he asked for a letter to be written in
55 1987, but there was no evidence that it actually was
56 written or sent?
57
58 MS. STEEL: That is right, and Mr. Nicholson did not bother to
59 check up on whether or not it had been written or sent.
60 But the point is that there is no evidence in this case
