Day 307 - 27 Nov 96 - Page 16
1 containing allegations to the same or similar effect,
2 knowing the contents to be untrue and/or being reckless as
3 to their truth or falsity." I would make the same comments
4 about "causing to be published", and so on, but I will not
5 go through it every single time. But if you can take it
6 that that is our argument for all the meanings.
7
8 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
9
10 MS. STEEL: The second point in relation to the Plaintiffs'
11 pleaded meaning (b) is the "and other material containing
12 allegations to the same or similar effect." There is
13 absolutely nothing in these documents which refers to other
14 leaflets being distributed by us. It is clear that
15 throughout all of these documents McDonald's are referring
16 to us distributing the leaflet, the leaflet that they are
17 suing us over in court, so the "and other material" et
18 cetera should be deleted from that meaning.
19
20 The final point in relation to the Plaintiffs' pleaded
21 meaning (b) is the "and/or being reckless as to their truth
22 or falsity". I just make the point, again, that there is
23 nothing in the press releases or the leaflet about
24 recklessness -----
25
26 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes, the same point about recklessness. Yes.
27
28 MS. STEEL: Moving on to meaning (c), our meaning (c) is that:
29 "The Defendants and each of them have, as members and
30 representatives of London Greenpeace, deliberately ignored
31 several letters sent by McDonald's solicitors since 1984
32 advising them that the leaflet 'What's wrong with
33 McDonald's' (referred to in paragraph 3 of the Statement of
34 Claim) was defamatory and have, despite these letters,
35 persistently continued to distribute the said leaflet and
36 thereby spread lies".
37
38 I am doing all of this, really, from the 'Libel Action
39 Background Briefing', the third of the documents, but it is
40 referred to in the other two as well. In the fourth
41 paragraph of that document it says: "In December 1984
42 McDonald's solicitors wrote to the group", expressing
43 concern about the leaflets, stating that it was defamatory,
44 and so on. It then says: "Despite several subsequent
45 letters no acknowledgment or reply was ever received and
46 persistent distribution of the leaflet continued". That is
47 where the 'several letters' comes from, directly from
48 there.
49
50 I mean, this does not really need an explanation, but where
51 it says about "referred to in paragraph 3 of the Statement
52 of Claim", obviously that is not mentioned in the press
53 releases, but that is the effect of it because it is
54 talking about the leaflet which is the subject of the main
55 action in this trial.
56
57 Now, McDonald's pleaded meaning is: "The Defendants have,
58 as members and representatives of London Greenpeace,
59 deliberately ignored letters sent by McDonald's solicitors
60 in 1984 and 1990 advising them that the leaflet 'What's
