Day 305 - 25 Nov 96 - Page 04

     
     1        the anti-McDonald's campaign.
     2
     3        Just moving on to another subject -- I am not doing this in
     4        necessarily the best order -- but regarding so-called
     5        admissions allegedly made by myself, first of all, I want
     6        to add a note of caution, extreme caution, that, when the
     7        only evidence is that of admissions, it has to be
     8        considered in the light of 18 months of infiltration and no
     9        direct evidence; secondly, that these are so-called
    10        admissions which, in fact, the weight of the evidence is
    11        the opposite, in terms of our witnesses and even most of
    12        McDonald's own witnesses, saying that I was not effectively
    13        involved in London Greenpeace and not at all involved in
    14        the anti-McDonald's campaign.  So, the so-called admissions
    15        have to be seen in that light.
    16
    17        I am talking here about the Haringey affidavit and the
    18        Alan Clare claim.  So, I am making some general points,
    19        rather than analysing in detail those so-called
    20        admissions.
    21
    22        Thirdly, I would say about the admissions, as everybody
    23        will be aware in this case, there is any number of
    24        miscarriages of justice which have been based upon just
    25        such admissions, so-called admissions.  In the light of all
    26        those things, if any weight whatsoever was going to be
    27        given to these so-called admissions, even though they are
    28        countered by all the rest of the evidence, if any weight at
    29        all is going to be given, we would argue that, for example,
    30        Mr. Clare one would have to have 100 percent faith in the
    31        witness to take an admission against the weight of the rest
    32        of the evidence at all seriously.
    33
    34        Sticking with Alan Clare, obviously, we are going to show
    35        how Alan Clare was completely unreliable and -- well, his
    36        evidence was just unreliable in general.  So, I would
    37        submit that you would have to consider his evidence to be
    38        extremely reliable in order to rely on a so-called
    39        admission, which is the most devious -- not devious -- the
    40        most.....
    41
    42        Secondly, the fact that the meeting where this so-called
    43        admission was made was attended by another witness of the
    44        Plaintiff, who did not spot this remarkable event, alleged
    45        event.  One would have to therefore believe that the other
    46        witness was less credible than Mr. Clare -- which we do not
    47        believe is the case, based upon the totality of their
    48        evidence.
    49
    50        Also, a final point about the admission which we would 
    51        submit is that it would have to be 100 percent clear 
    52        admission, based upon all the other factors of weight and 
    53        countering and all the other evidence in the case, to give
    54        it any weight; it would have to be absolutely 100 percent
    55        clear admission to be given any weight at all.  Obviously,
    56        we will come to the detail of that.
    57
    58        Now, as far as the Haringey affidavit is concerned, which
    59        was prepared by a solicitor for a separate case, as we have
    60        heard -----