Day 305 - 25 Nov 96 - Page 11
1 can be proven to have led to publication.
2
3 Can I also say, the Haringey affidavit does not say "fact
4 sheets", actually; it says "leaflets", which, if I was
5 producing something in my own words and I was meaning to
6 say that we produced the fact sheets, I would have written
7 "fact sheet". So, "leaflets" could be anything. Which
8 leaflets? There is nothing in the Haringey affidavit to
9 say which leaflet is relevant. It may have been leaflets
10 that we had helped produce in 1995, 1994, which had led to
11 the counterclaim, for all I know. Again, it is a
12 completely unreliable and worthless piece of evidence.
13 Sorry, I do not want to over-egg the cake, as they say.
14
15 Just a couple of other general points on the fact sheet.
16 We have heard that the fact sheet was printed in '86
17 and '87, and from Mr. Gravett, who was involved at that
18 time; and no doubt widespread -- it was distributed -- no
19 doubt it was distributed as a result, I think I would
20 accept. Mr. Gravett said it was distributed.
21
22 The Plaintiffs have to show that the Defendants in this
23 case have responsibility for the publication wheresoever or
24 whensoever it has taken place. They have to show a direct
25 path from the Defendants to that publication, as I have
26 already said. But, on top of that, that is particularly a
27 compulsion on the Plaintiffs in this case, because the bulk
28 of the distribution of that fact sheet must have occurred
29 before the limitation period was triggered in
30 September '87. We have heard that there were two printings
31 before that. Therefore, any publication by anyone since
32 the limitation period started may, just as equally -- in
33 fact, much more so, because of the extensive distribution
34 before September '87 -- be as a result of that original
35 flurry of activity and distribution of the fact sheet.
36
37 The burden of proof is on the Plaintiffs to show that any
38 publication within the relevant times must have been as a
39 result of something that me or Helen has done; not as a
40 result of something that happened before September 1987, or
41 indeed afterwards by anyone else, apart from ourselves.
42
43 As we heard evidence of, indeed, the only printing of the
44 fact sheet and, certainly, the most extensive publication
45 of the fact sheet -- if any publication did take place at
46 all by London Greenpeace after September '87, and,
47 obviously, Mr. Gravett has said it was put in mail-outs,
48 I mean answers to inquiries, but that is very much his
49 individual initiative, responsibility or decision,
50 whatever -- but the bulk of any publication would have been
51 as a result of the Veggies publishing London Greenpeace
52 fact sheets. So, the only production that can be
53 identified within the limitation period is from Veggies of
54 Nottingham; and, initially, they published the
55 London Greenpeace fact sheet.
56
57 So, what I am saying is that here we have a group, Veggies,
58 producing the London Greenpeace fact sheet; initially, the
59 words complained of were completely contained in the
60 Veggies fact sheet, Veggies' version of the fact sheet; and
