Day 305 - 25 Nov 96 - Page 09
1 Furthermore, on this piece of, I would not even call it
2 shadowy, I would call it non-evidence -- I did make the
3 point, but I did not make it clearly, I think -- that it is
4 actually a paragraph in a document which is completely
5 about a separate case. The actual paragraph, number 2, is
6 completely irrelevant. What this case is about in this
7 courtroom is, it was completely irrelevant to the Haringey
8 case in terms of a matter of evidence. So it was something
9 in which a kind of colloquial summary would be appropriate,
10 rather than a carefully worded piece of evidence to submit
11 towards the judge in that case. Here, we have a colloquial
12 summary produced by the solicitor (not in my words) about
13 this case.
14
15 I think that this of course is the same mistake that
16 Neill LJ made in his ruling in our favour at the Court of
17 Appeal in March 1994. I think we also referred in this
18 case, in argument, to other types of mistake, other similar
19 mistakes made in other rulings about the so-called
20 publication by the Defendants of the words complained of;
21 and, of course, it is a regular mistake made in virtually
22 every newspaper report that has ever covered this case.
23 Each one, potentially, would be content if the judge was
24 going to be swayed or the tribunal would be swayed by what
25 they read outside the court -- because the word "allegedly"
26 has been omitted in virtually all the newspaper reports.
27
28 So, we do not think you should be swayed, obviously, by
29 what you read in the media, we do not think you should be
30 swayed by what you have read in the judgment of Neill LJ,
31 about this case, and we do not think you should be swayed
32 by something in this affidavit in a colloquial mis-summary
33 by the solicitor -- clearly in her own words rather than
34 mine -- bearing in mind, on top of that, it is clearly
35 inaccurate, by McDonald's own acceptance, because they have
36 dropped the case against Miss Steel on production.
37
38 I think that if we have gone to the House of Lords to
39 appeal against Neill LJ's judgment on that particular
40 matter, it would have been thrown out as trivial and an
41 abuse of process, because -----
42
43 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It was not relevant to ---
44
45 MR. MORRIS: It was not relevant to his judgment.
46
47 MR. JUSTICE BELL: -- to the decisions which he had to make.
48
49 MR. MORRIS: Exactly; and that is exactly the same point that
50 I am making about this affidavit: it is a sentence that is
51 not relevant to the decision that the judge had to make in
52 the Haringey case, and, therefore, we consider it as a
53 trivial matter which is no basis for any kind of evidence.
54 But, in any case, it should also be seen in the light of
55 the fact that it is clearly incorrect about Ms. Steel, by
56 McDonald's own admission, and, on top of that, it is
57 countered by the evidence in the case, for example, from
58 Mr. Gravett and others that are clearly are not involved
59 with the production of the fact sheet and not involved with
60 distribution.
