Day 308 - 28 Nov 96 - Page 02
1 Thursday, 28th November, 1996
2
3 MS. STEEL: Just a point I wanted to get out of the way, which
4 is not relevant to the counterclaim, actually -- well, I do
5 not know whether it is, but just so that I can get rid of
6 the piece of paper -- that in relation to the "whensoever
7 and wheresoever the leaflet was published" and us being
8 responsible, that on day 237, page 6, Mr. Carroll said
9 that, by and large, leaflet distribution was a local
10 affair, and there was no evidence of it being, you know, a
11 central group of people going around being responsible for
12 leafleting in all different places.
13
14 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
15
16 MS. STEEL: I wanted to refer to page 5 of the Defence to
17 Counterclaim, paragraph 2. The Plaintiff makes reference
18 in here to the "chronology of information sent by the
19 Plaintiffs to the defendant", which is attached at
20 appendix 1, and this is under the particulars of
21 justification for accusing us of being liars. It should be
22 noted that this chronology of information actually includes
23 notices of admissions served by the Plaintiffs on the
24 Defendants in the main action. I think that, really, that
25 is an example of just how extreme McDonald's thinking is
26 and how warped it is, that they can say that the fact that
27 they have served notices of admission on us where they are
28 admitting part of what we are saying, that they can then
29 try and say that that is justification for saying that we
30 knew that what we were saying is untrue; it is just
31 completely unreal. It is a totally distorted way of
32 thinking.
33
34 In tab 3, pages 18 and 19, I just wanted to point out that
35 we asked them to identify the date of each letter which
36 they have sent, which they were referring to, and produced
37 copies. On page 19, answer 30, they admit that -----
38
39 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Tab 3 -- what, in the bundle?
40
41 MS. STEEL: I should not have said tab 3, actually. This is my
42 tab. So just ignore the tab 3. In the Further and Better
43 Particulars of the Defence to Counterclaim.
44
45 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. Page 19.
46
47 MS. STEEL: Pages 18 and 19 and the answers on page 19, where
48 they admit that the only two letters that they can produce
49 are the letter sent in December 1984 and the letter sent in
50 September 1990 which enclosed the writs.
51
52 I am not going to spend time going through this, because
53 I do not think we have time, but I would say strongly that
54 the leaflet produced in 1984, which the Plaintiffs wrote a
55 letter about, is substantially different to the fact sheet,
56 both in form and in content.
57
58 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I will hear anything Mr. Rampton wants to say
59 about that, but it does not look to me that it is the same
60 leaflet at all. It may have one or two of the same
