Day 313 - 13 Dec 96 - Page 11

     
     1        releases, that being the purpose of the press release, and
     2        McDonald's would be well aware that if the contents were
     3        reported in coverage of the case our names would be given
     4        in any report since we were parties to the case.
     5
     6   MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
     7
     8   MS. STEEL:   Secondly, both the leaflets and the press releases
     9        continued to be published after the start of the trial when
    10        there had been widespread coverage in the media which had
    11        included our names in the reports, and therefore people
    12        would know our names.  Thirdly, even if some people did not
    13        know or remember our names, the leaflets and press releases
    14        could still lower their opinion of "the two people fighting
    15        the McDonald's case", and this, for example, might lead to
    16        them deciding against sending messages of support or
    17        donations, which no doubt was exactly why McDonald's
    18        distributed these leaflets and press releases.
    19
    20        By the way, where I have not actually dealt with a specific
         paragraph it is not because I agree with what is in it.
    22
    23   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I understand it.  I am picking up particular
    24        points you want to make.
    25
    26   MS. STEEL:   Yes.  Right.  Paragraph 3.2: I mean, I have dealt
    27        already with the fact that there is no evidence put forward
    28        by the Plaintiffs that myself or Mr. Morris have lied.  And
    29        in terms of what Mr. Rampton says here about being reckless
    30        to the truth, the Plaintiffs have not put forward any
    31        evidence of recklessness either.  The fact is that even if
    32        you get something wrong, which we do not accept the
    33        Plaintiffs have shown in relation to the claims made in
    34        their press releases and leaflets about the fact sheet,
    35        which is the subject of the main action, it does not
    36        automatically follow that you have been reckless.  For
    37        example, if a matter had been reported in several places as
    38        being true would someone be reckless for having repeated it
    39        if it then later turned out to be untrue?
    40
         Recklessness is about not caring, and there has been no
    42        evidence put forward by the Plaintiffs, and no evidence
    43        given in court whatsoever either, that myself or Mr. Morris
    44        lied or that we did not care whether what was said in the
    45        leaflets was true.  All the evidence in the case has been
    46        that we believed the criticisms made in the
    47        London Greenpeace fact sheet and other anti-McDonald's
    48        leaflets to be true, and that that was our motivation for
    49        fighting this case.
    50
    51        3.2 paragraph 4: the only claim by the Plaintiffs here of
    52        the Defendants making false statements as to involvement
    53        with London Greenpeace and the anti-McDonald's campaign is
    54        in our witness statements and in answers to
    55        interrogatories.  In answer to that, (A), these were not
    56        public documents, therefore this accusation by McDonald's
    57        cannot by any stretch of the imagination be argued to be
    58        "privileged self-defence"; (B), it should not be forgotten
    59        that the words complained of in McDonald's press releases
    60        and leaflets refer to "leading roles" and "organising