Day 261 - 12 Jun 96 - Page 64


     
     1
     2   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  All this is comment in due course.  I will
     3        look at the whole of the evidence which is relevant to this
     4        issue.  I am not suggesting it will be so, but were the
     5        situation, for instance, that there was evidence which was
     6        credible -- let us get right away from this.  Suppose there
     7        was a body of people generally working together with what
     8        appeared to be common aims who, at two meetings, were
     9        handing out leaflets which made certain allegations against
    10        the plaintiffs, and then they said that leaflets were
    11        handed out at a third meeting and a fourth meeting; and the
    12        evidence was very strong of them doing that at the first
    13        and second meetings, it was pretty weak in relation to the
    14        third meeting, and then medium in relation to the fourth.
    15        If might be that the judge, looking at all of that, would
    16        nevertheless hold that it was handed out at all four
    17        meetings, on balance of probabilities, because even though
    18        the evidence was weaker in relation to the third occasion
    19        and the first or second, on balance of probabilities (which
    20        is all that the judge is concerned with), he might
    21        say: "Well the evidence is not as strong there, but I can
    22        see a certain consistency of conduct, and I think it is
    23        more likely than not that it was at that third meeting or
    24        so."
    25
    26        I have particularly said that I am getting away from this
    27        case.  That is not a parable in relation to this case, but
    28        it is an attempt to point out that one picks up a jigsaw,
    29        one makes up a jigsaw of all the evidence and, at the end
    30        of the day, there may be so many parts missing that you
    31        cannot see the picture.  At the end of the day, there may
    32        be a lot of parts missing, but you can see that it is the
    33        Mona Lisa.  If it is such a recognisable picture, you may
    34        be able to recognise it from one-fifth of the parts.  If it
    35        is not a very recognisable picture, you may need 90 per
    36        cent of it.  You just cannot make a general rule for it.
    37        But what you are not to think is, because the evidence --
    38        and, again, this is not directed at this -- because the
    39        evidence is dodgy in relation to one specific, then that
    40        specific is removed altogether; not necessarily.  One has
    41        to look at the whole picture.
    42
    43        I am not going to say any more about it.  That is just the
    44        benefit, if you choose to take it, of my experience in
    45        litigation.
    46
    47        However that may be, if your case is going to be positively
    48        that the leaflet complained of was not present or dealt
    49        with in a way that the witness has suggested -- reliably,
    50        you may think, or unreliably -- you should put it to him. 
    51 
    52   MR. MORRIS:  (To the witness)  Can you recall now which specific 
    53        McDonald's leaflets, anti-McDonald's leaflets, were at the
    54        fair in October 1989?
    55        A.  No, I cannot.
    56
    57   MS. STEEL:   OK.  If we move on to the notes of 26th October,
    58        please.
    59
    60   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Do you have the page?

Prev Next Index