Day 313 - 13 Dec 96 - Page 25


     
     1        statement that London Greenpeace had ignored several --
     2        London Greenpeace and the Defendants had ignored several --
     3        letters sent by McDonald's asking them to desist in
     4        publication of the fact sheet.
     5
     6        Now, apart from the fact that that leaflet actually says
     7        that London Greenpeace replied to the letter written by
     8        McDonald's solicitors, which would completely contradict
     9        their claim, where is the evidence put forward in court
    10        that anybody who was involved in producing the McDonald's
    11        press releases or leaflets was thinking of that document
    12        when they wrote the words "several letters" and "no reply
    13        received"?  If they were not thinking of that document
    14        perhaps they would not have written those words and
    15        obviously, bearing in mind that that document was dated
    16        from 1988, or something like that, whenever it was, it was
    17        several years prior to the publication of the McDonald's
    18        press releases and leaflets, and no doubt it had been
    19        buried in files somewhere and forgotten about.
    20
    21        The reality is that that was not the basis for their belief
    22        as has been asserted.
    23
    24        This is a bit unfortunate, I have a reference here to tab
    25        86 in the same bundle.  I cannot actually remember what
    26        this leaflet was, we have not got ours in court.
    27
    28   MR. JUSTICE BELL: Let us just look.  It is McLibel support
    29        campaign, McDonald's v London Greenpeace, and it is one
    30        with the February stamp in the bottom right-hand corner.
    31
    32   MS. STEEL:   Right.  OK, I just read what I have written down
    33        here.
    34
    35   MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
    36
    37   MS. STEEL:   Which is that the Plaintiffs have said that this is
    38        most important.  I do not know whether that means the most
    39        important or just an important one.  Just to say that
    40        nobody referred to this as a motive for the press releases
    41        and leaflets when they were giving evidence, not Mr.
    42        Nicholson or Mr. Preston, and that it was produced
    43        according to the index three years before the counterclaim
    44        documents.  So it was hardly likely to be the basis for
    45        those documents.  Actually, I remember which one it is now.
    46
    47        Plus, if it had been a response to a document produced
    48        three years before, it would not be reasonable to make the
    49        kind of response the Plaintiffs did three years later if
    50        the attack of that specific nature had not been repeated in
    51        the meantime.  Furthermore on this point, there is no
    52        evidence about who produced this leaflet and no evidence to
    53        connect either myself or Mr. Morris to it.  I mean,
    54        obviously, that goes for just about all of the press
    55        releases, and so on, that the Plaintiffs have said they are
    56        relying on, except the ones they said they specifically put
    57        to me in the witness box where, obviously, whatever I said
    58        about a particular document, could be taken as relevant
    59        evidence.  I cannot remember which ones were put and which
    60        ones were not, to be honest.

Prev Next Index