Day 308 - 28 Nov 96 - Page 13

     
     1
     2        The second point is that if, for some inexplicable reason,
     3        they were not conscious of the truth of what was stated in
     4        the leaflets, they certainly knew that we believed the
     5        leaflets to be true.  It is just too far-fetched to believe
     6        that we would go to the bother of fighting through all the
     7        various pre-trial hearings and gather in 60 or so witness
     8        statements in a three-week period, which would cause
     9        anybody severe stress -- and McDonald's were aware that we
    10        had to do all that in a three-week period -- it is just too
    11        far-fetched to believe that it is true that someone would
    12        put themselves through that if we did not believe in the
    13        truth of the statements that were being fought over; and,
    14        obviously, there are all the additional points about the
    15        fact that we did not have Legal Aid and that we were
    16        unrepresented, and all the other things.  You know, we just
    17        would not have put ourselves through all that if we did not
    18        believe that the fact sheet was true.  I think that that
    19        has to be obvious to absolutely anybody.
    20
         Then, moving on to page 2 of that document, the Further and
    22        Better Particulars of the reply to the Defence to
    23        Counterclaim, paragraph 4, that: "Since the service of the
    24        counterclaim, the Second Plaintiff has continued to
    25        distribute such defamatory material despite all the things
    26        that are set out in the pleading."
    27
    28        Firstly, as proof of this, we have the document which
    29        appears in the Defendants' supplementary list number 9, at
    30        tab 4, copy of the Libel Action Background Briefing, which,
    31        on its last page, is dated 11/94, i.e. November 1994; so
    32        that that document was published in November 1994.  It has
    33        to have been published; otherwise, we would not have been
    34        able to get a copy of it.  But I do not suppose the
    35        Plaintiffs are going to deny that it has been published.
    36
    37        There is tab 5, which is also the Libel Action Background
    38        Briefing, which is dated April 1995; and on its last page,
    39        there is tab 10, which was enclosed with a letter to
    40        Mr. Ken Livingstone MP at the House of Commons, and the
         letter dated 7th March 1996, Mike Love from McDonald's says
    42        he has enclosed a copy of their background briefing note;
    43        and that one is actually dated 3/95, the one that was
    44        enclosed.
    45
    46        There is the document in tab 12, a copy of the leaflet
    47        which was distributed in July 1994, and there is the copy
    48        of the Libel Action Background Briefing which was sent to
    49        Annette Heidi of Stern Magazine in May 1996; and this was
    50        during the time that Mr. Preston was in the witness box 
    51        being cross-examined about the counterclaim. 
    52 
    53        All of those documents show that, despite the fact that
    54        through the counterclaim they are fully aware that they are
    55        distributing inaccurate information, they have continued to
    56        distribute those press releases and those leaflets, which
    57        are a vicious attack on us and are completely unjustified
    58        in any way, shape or form, and certainly not substantiated
    59        by any evidence put forward by McDonald's.
    60