Day 307 - 27 Nov 96 - Page 39


     
     1        know, that organisation was set up to provide us with
     2        support does not mean that we are part of it.  Obviously,
     3        you know, there is a degree of common interest, but it does
     4        not automatically follow that we are then part of it.  It
     5        is up to McDonald's to prove that we were part of the
     6        campaign and that we were responsible for particular
     7        documents.
     8
     9        Just another point in relation to No 3.  This occurred to
    10        me just at lunchtime, actually.  That the Plaintiffs are
    11        saying that the campaign always has involved publication of
    12        material of the kind in the Mclibel file and it has been
    13        said that the Defendants are, and always have been,
    14        involved in such publication since they support the
    15        campaign, and the point of the campaign is to support them
    16        in their legal battle.
    17
    18        Now, when we were arguing about admissions being taken
    19        about statements made by McDonald's being admissions, and
    20        that we could use them as evidence, Mr. Rampton actually
    21        said that they could only be admissions if they were from
    22        an authorised person.  That is, you know, with a clearly
    23        defined body, where you have got employees working for
    24        McDonald's and so you know that they are part of that
    25        Corporation, that organisation, whereas here we have got a
    26        campaign where, just because we may have aims and ideas in
    27        common, it does not mean that we are part of that campaign
    28        or that we are responsible for each and every thing, or
    29        anything, that it produces.  You know, that is even looser
    30        than the example of the McDonald's company, so how can it
    31        be taken that anything put out by the support campaign can
    32        be used against us in any kind of way?
    33
    34        Page 11 of the document -- well, it starts on page 10:
    35        "The Plaintiffs have pleaded that our involvement in the
    36        publication of the said material is further to be inferred
    37        from things", such as if McDonald's think we will apologise
    38        to them they are wrong, our defence, et cetera, "Dear
    39        Everyone", and "McDonald's have billions of pounds to play
    40        with.  We just have each other".
    41
    42        There are various points I want to make about these.  One
    43        is that number 6, which is our defence, et cetera, you
    44        might remember that is the document which has been the
    45        source of a bit of controversy in this case.  This document
    46        was actually sent to a potential witness in Costa Rica.
    47        Now, firstly, that is out of this jurisdiction, and,
    48        therefore, McDonald's could not complain about it.
    49        Secondly, it is a privileged communication, it is not
    50        distribution to the public.  It is communication to a 
    51        potential witness.  McDonald's have brought absolutely no 
    52        evidence to show either that it was published in this 
    53        country or that it was not a privileged document.  In fact,
    54        it is quite clear from that document that it has been sent
    55        over from Costa Rica.  So they cannot rely upon that
    56        document for those two reasons.
    57
    58        The second one, "Dear everyone".  Actually, I am at a loss
    59        to see how that would show, how the words "Dear Everyone"
    60        would show that we were involved in the publication of that

Prev Next Index