Day 261 - 12 Jun 96 - Page 72
1 this. In fact, I have not understood that, so far as
2 McDonald's is concerned, there is any dispute that
3 London Greenpeace was interested in a number of
4 activities. There may be an issue, although for all I know
5 it may turn out to be marginal as to just how big a place
6 McDonald's had in the activities. The only real issue, as
7 I understand it, is whether the anti-McDonald's campaign,
8 if there was such a campaign, was a continuing subject of
9 some interest.
10
11 MS. STEEL: I think it was just because-- actually, I do not
12 know if it was at a pretrial hearing, I think it may have
13 been at some stage during the trial Mr. Rampton said
14 something about, when I said about being involved with the
15 IMF campaign Mr. Rampton seemed to make some sort of
16 suggestion as though that was something new and the group
17 had not been -- you know, that was what was being taken
18 over from McDonald's.
19
20 MR. RAMPTON: I do not recall saying any such thing. I am
21 concerned in this case solely on behalf of McDonald's in
22 the context of this case. I do not give a fig for Unilever
23 or the IMF or any other body, poll tax, animal rights, or
24 anything else these people may have been interested in. My
25 only concern, so far as this case is concerned in this
26 aspect, is, first, whether these Defendants were liable for
27 having published the words complained of from three years
28 before the issue of the writ up until 20th September, 1990
29 and, second, the more narrow question, whether the
30 anti-McDonald's campaign continued whether as a feature of
31 that campaign -- and this is what is important -- the words
32 complained of continued to be distributed, however
33 sporadically, up until the issue of the writ, and, third,
34 if that was the case, whether the presence of the inquiry
35 agents amongst the group had any bearing on the
36 continuation of that campaign with that particular feature
37 of it.
38
39 As I see it, my Lord, those are the only relevant questions
40 and hours of cross-examination devoted to the group's other
41 interests I really do not see the point of.
42
43 MS. STEEL: Well, I have my suspicions that Mr. Rampton is not
44 going to turn around and say something different -----
45
46 MR. JUSTICE BELL: If concentrating on something else excludes
47 you from any campaign against McDonald's, then I can see
48 the relevance. But they are not necessarily mutually
49 exclusive, and on that basis I have not understood it to be
50 challenged that you were interested in other things which
51 may have been going on for some time.
52
53 MS. STEEL: Well, it is my recollection -----
54
55 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It is worth mentioning it now because it has
56 been a feature of your cross-examination and, quite
57 frankly, I do not think we need spend time on it, save
58 insofar as you want to suggest that at any particular time
59 it excluded you from any anti-McDonald's campaign which may
60 have been going on, or save insofar as you want to suggest
