Day 308 - 28 Nov 96 - Page 10
1 anyway, when he comes to accept the fact that he has no
2 evidence to back it up.
3
4 Actually, there was one other thing that I wanted to
5 mention, which was at number 9 -- we have said this
6 before -- about the copy of transcripts in court
7 marked "Return to the McLibel Two". This is absolutely
8 rubbish, what is alleged here. There is no evidence that
9 the transcripts were used by supporters in the support
10 campaign in order to produce material for the McLibel
11 support campaign. I did refer to the fact in evidence that
12 there was a file which said "Return to the McLibel
13 defendants", and that the reason for that was because for
14 the first month of the trial we were having regular, or
15 fairly regular, meetings to discuss what had happened in
16 court, and that involved lending transcripts to people
17 giving us legal advice; for example Mr. Starmer at Doubty
18 Street; and, obviously, we wanted them returned for use in
19 court. It is just not safe to draw any of the inferences
20 suggested by McDonald's.
21
22 I will just do this briefly. Moving on to the reply to the
23 Defence to Counterclaim, which is that the Second Plaintiff
24 was actuated by express malice in publishing the words
25 which were set out in the counterclaim. Firstly, I would
26 like to make the point we are not resiling from making the
27 allegation that McDonald's Restaurants UK were actuated by
28 express malice.
29
30 As far as we are concerned, if, as McDonald's are pleading,
31 a company can have a reputation and can have its reputation
32 injured, and so on, then it can also act in a malicious
33 way. So, the names that we gave for the individuals within
34 the Company that were actuated by express malice are an
35 additional point; they are not substitutes.
36
37 Just going through some of our pleadings -- this is the
38 reply to the Defence to Counterclaim served on
39 6th March 1995 -- the particulars that we rely on to show
40 express malice are, firstly: "The Second Plaintiff
41 published the said words knowing them to be untrue and/or
42 being reckless as to their truth or falsity."
43
44 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Just pause a moment. Let me get that.
45 (Pause) Yes.
46
47 MS. STEEL: Furthers particulars are given in the Further and
48 Better Particulars of the reply to the Defence to
49 Counterclaim dated 25th September 1995. We were asked what
50 facts and matters we relied upon in support of that.
51
52 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Let me just find the divider. (Pause) Yes.
53
54 MS. STEEL: Answer number 1: "It is apparent from the Defence
55 to Counterclaim, including the Further and Better
56 Particulars", et cetera, "that the Second Plaintiff has no
57 or no substantial grounds for publishing the said words."
58
59 I mean, that obviously just can be taken from reading the
60 pleadings; and one specific matter is, obviously, the
