Day 305 - 25 Nov 96 - Page 10

     
     1
     2        The other point about this production argument is, as we
     3        have already stated, the Plaintiffs have effectively no
     4        cause of action on their production pleadings, because
     5        there is no cause of action unless there is publication,
     6        and they have to show the publication that directly
     7        resulted from the production that they claim is inferred or
     8        is alluded to in this Haringey affidavit.
     9
    10        Obviously, if London Greenpeace produced a fact sheet, then
    11        it would have been distributed, because it does not say in
    12        the Haringey affidavit what this so-called production
    13        entailed.  Did it entail photocopying some fact sheets in
    14        mid 1990 or in 1986, paying the printers?  What did it
    15        involve, this (what we say) piece of non-evidence?  But,
    16        let us assume it carries any weight whatsoever:  McDonald's
    17        have to show that the production resulted in distribution
    18        and the distribution was between the dates that have been
    19        specified in the limitation period, which would be from
    20        September '87 to the time of the writ; and it was to a
         member of the public, a third party; and, therefore,
    22        publication resulted from that alleged production.
    23
    24        We have already said that there is no cause of action for
    25        their paragraphs on alleged production; and it is even more
    26        clear that there is no cause of action, because the only
    27        basis they have got of these paragraphs is this Haringey
    28        affidavit -- which is what Mr. Rampton has stated in
    29        court -- and in fact it is the only thing that they have to
    30        rely on.
    31
    32        If it had said, if the basis of their production,
    33        production paragraphs in the Statement of Claim, was that
    34        I swore an affidavit saying that I had printed the
    35        fact sheet in 1987 and 1988, or something, then they may
    36        have had some kind of argument.  But the affidavit is
    37        completely worthless in terms of any indication of what
    38        this alleged responsibility and when it took place would
    39        be.
    40
         Of course, that was up to the Plaintiffs.  It was decided
    42        that they had a right to base a pleading on it, but that
    43        does not mean to say they have any evidence; it means they
    44        may have been able to get evidence at a later stage in the
    45        case, which they singularly failed to do.  In fact, the
    46        evidence, for example, from Mr. Gravett, who was involved
    47        heavily all the way through with the fact sheet, was to the
    48        contrary, that Ms. Steel and myself were both not involved
    49        in production or, indeed, in distribution.
    50 
    51        The next point on this fact sheet is, in any event, that 
    52        the evidence, the only evidence, the unchallengeable 
    53        evidence, about when the fact sheet was produced was from
    54        Mr. Gravett, and his evidence was that it was before the
    55        limitation period, September 1987, before September 1987.
    56        Unless McDonald's could show some other production, with
    57        evidence, that myself and Ms. Steel were responsible for
    58        within the limitation period, then, again, there is no
    59        cause of action on production; it lies outside the
    60        limitation period, whether or not it led to publication and