Day 308 - 28 Nov 96 - Page 22
1 MR. MORRIS: Yes. OK. But, obviously-----
2
3 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Anyway, you make your points.
4
5 MR. MORRIS: OK.
6
7 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I am not unsympathetic to your question. It
8 is just, obviously, at the end of the day I have to judge
9 what I will re-read and what I will not. Wherever I have
10 said in relation to specific witness of yours that I will
11 re-read them I will be faithful to that.
12
13 MR. MORRIS: Yes. A lot of day 245 was basically putting to
14 Mr. Preston the evidence that has been in the case, mainly
15 from their own witnesses, which contradict, which has
16 shown, demonstrated, that their own statements made by the
17 Company have been contradicted by their own witnesses or by
18 overwhelming evidence from other sources, and that
19 therefore they are not true, and where we have are able to
20 demonstrate that they knew they were not true we have said,
21 "That is a lie, is it not?" and, basically, the drift of
22 it is that Mr. Preston is completely incapable of
23 recognising truth and untruth. That is what we would
24 submit as a result of that questioning and the evidence
25 that was put in front of him.
26
27 He is the person who gave the authority for the leaflets
28 and counterclaim, and therefore it is significant in terms
29 of his motivation, his ability, his credibility, and his
30 malicious intent.
31
32 In particular, then, if I just very quickly mention some
33 things. On day 245, page 38, line 16, he was questioned,
34 "The situation as presently stands is that you are seeking
35 damages and costs but that you may not recover them at the
36 end of the day?" Answer, "That is what I have said over
37 time, yes". Question, "Right, so that is a pack of lies in
38 that letter", this was letter we were referring to quoted
39 today. Answer, "No, it is not".
40
41 Day 245, page 40, lines 18 onwards. This quotes the bit in
42 the further and better particulars of the reply to the
43 Defence to Counterclaim where it had said that "The Second
44 Plaintiff is fully -- underlined, I under line that --
45 fully -- "aware that prior to service of the writs in the
46 main action neither they nor solicitors acting on their
47 behalf had ever written to London Greenpeace nor to
48 individuals involved with the group stating that the
49 Company considered the fact sheet to be defamatory or
50 requesting that the group ceased distribution of the
51 fact sheet". They are fully aware of that in their own
52 pleadings.
53
54 Then, on the bottom of that page, he admits basically they
55 made a mistake about that point, including 'in the words
56 complained of' in the counterclaim. Then, we said, "On the
57 day that you signed your statement on the 7th March you
58 sent the very same press release to Mr. Ken Livingstone MP
59 making exactly the same point which you knew was
60 incorrect".
