Day 307 - 27 Nov 96 - Page 24
1
2 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Is there anything further on --
3
4 MS. STEEL: Sorry. Going on to page 6 of the defence to
5 counterclaim, about the "despite the lack of any or any
6 substantial support for the allegations in the evidence
7 served in the main action and the discovery in witness
8 statements on behalf of both the Plaintiffs and the
9 Defendants". I mean, I think this is just completely
10 ludicrous because whatever they may say about the weight of
11 the evidence the Plaintiffs cannot say that our witness
12 statements do not back up what was said in the fact sheet
13 and, as I said before, our view is that both our witness
14 statements and to a notable extent, or noteworthy extent,
15 the Plaintiffs' witnesses, plus the discovery made on both
16 sides, bears out the truth of the fact sheet.
17
18 I have lost something which I wanted to refer to. (Pause)
19 On page 6, under (i), or little one, whatever you want to
20 call it.
21
22 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Do not worry. Little one.
23
24 MS. STEEL: It says that we have continued to -- "despite not
25 having any evidence we have continued to distribute" --
26 sorry. I have got it now. I was misunderstanding my
27 notes. Actually, in this paragraph they are only alleging
28 distribution of the shorter versions of the 'What's wrong
29 with McDonald's' leaflet. They do not actually allege
30 distribution of the fact sheet since the institution of
31 proceedings. They say that the relevant particulars of
32 distribution and publication of the leaflets concerned are
33 contained in all the various further and better
34 particulars.
35
36 If I just say that whilst I have not denied distributing A5
37 leaflets, I have admitted it, I admitted it when I was in
38 the witness box, the Plaintiffs have not actually called
39 any evidence on the specific dates pleaded as far as I
40 remember, and they did not question me on this, the
41 specific dates, and as far as I can tell there is no
42 evidence against Dave at all that they called on in
43 relation to those dates, it should be borne in mind that
44 they are the dates that the Plaintiffs are relying on, so
45 they would have to prove that we published the short
46 versions of the leaflets on those particular dates that are
47 mentioned in those pleadings.
48
49 In number 2 on that page it says that it is to be inferred
50 that we have caused to be published or been party to, and
51 so on, material published by the McLibel Support Campaign.
52 Now, we would say that it cannot be a matter of inference
53 that it has to be shown by McDonald's that we are
54 responsible for specific individual publications, and that
55 no evidence has been brought on that particular matter at
56 all. I was cross-examined about some later documents
57 produced by the McLibel Support Campaign, and I do not
58 remember being questioned about any pretrial documents or
59 any documents that would be relevant to the counterclaim in
60 terms of having been published before the Plaintiffs
