Day 304 - 22 Nov 96 - Page 13
1 frequently it is printed. The point is that the evidence
2 that we heard in this case was that the last time the fact
3 sheet was printed was in 1987, and there is not any
4 evidence really about when and where the fact sheet was
5 distributed after that date. It should be borne in mind
6 that the date of printing was -- the date of the last print
7 run, according to Mr. Gravett, would be before 20th
8 September 1987, which was the furthest date that we go back
9 in this trial looking at in terms of -- it was the
10 limitation of the Plaintiffs' pleadings.
11
12 There is no cause of action until the fact sheet has been
13 published, until a publication has been published. On top
14 of that, the factual connection between the publication and
15 the Defendants must be proved to exist. Whensoever or
16 wheresoever does not allege particular instances of
17 publication where there is also necessarily a causal link
18 between myself and Mr. Morris and those instances of
19 publication. For these reasons, the pleadings in paragraph
20 3C are also defective.
21
22 However, we do realise that there was some evidence that
23 individuals within London Greenpeace did distribute the
24 fact sheet. So, obviously, we will meet that aspect of the
25 case and deal with that which would be put on the basis of
26 joint liability. Well, that is how the Plaintiffs would
27 argue it.
28
29 Having scoured away the smokescreen of irrelevant
30 allegations which do not pertain to an action for libel,
31 the real cause of action must necessarily stem from two
32 actionable allegations: (1) that the Defendants either
33 personally distributed the fact sheet complained of to
34 third parties; or (2) that we caused, authorised, procured
35 or were party to the distribution of the fact sheet to
36 third parties, and the third parties are not referred to in
37 the Statement of Claim.
38
39 We will go through the law and the evidence on what we
40 regard as the actionable matters first. I am going into
41 the legal framework now.
42
43 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. Then we will resume at two o'clock.
44
45 (Luncheon adjournment)
46
47 MS. STEEL: I have got a load of cases. Now, they were not in
48 the right order. I am not sure whether I will refer to all
49 of them. I might as well hand them all up now.
50
51 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. (Handed).
52
53 MS. STEEL: The list that is on the front is not actually all
54 the cases that are there. There are some other bits and
55 pieces. I will just carry on. In so far as we are alleged
56 to have caused, authorised or procured distribution of the
57 leaflet, there must be evidence of some positive act by us
58 to that end. McDonald's are trying to place us in a
59 position analogous with that defined in R. v. Pain, 1696, 5
60 MOD page 167. I don't know whether that is one of the ones
