Day 002 - 29 Jun 94 - Page 28

     
     1        hand copies to your opponent. Two things about this.
 
     2
         MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Shall I read it then?
     3
         MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, yes.  It is much better if your Lordship
     4        does.  (Pause).
 
     5   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What use, if any, are you seeking to make of
              this in your opening?
     6
         MR. MORRIS:  Well, because I am trying to point to yourself
     7        that----
 
     8   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  All you need say, unless you are going to
              call key people----
     9
         MR. MORRIS:  I will not read it all out.
    10
         MR. JUSTICE BELL:  All you need say it is your case, which you
         have already indicated in any event, that if they did
              apologise it was because of the consequences if they did
    12        not in one way or another rather than because they
              accepted that the fact sheet was in any way untrue.  That
    13        is your case, is it not?
 
    14   MR. MORRIS:  That is our case.  Mr. Rampton did say they
              accepted the leaflet was untrue, whereas they have now
    15        made a public statement saying----
 
    16   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No.  Have they made a public statement?
 
    17   MR. MORRIS:  This is the public statement.
 
    18   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No.  You cannot refer to that unless you are
              going to call a witness.
    19
         MR. MORRIS:  Mr. Gravett is a witness.
    20
         MR. JUSTICE BELL:  But you cannot refer to the statement of all
         3.  I hope I have fairly summarised what you want to say
              in open court about that.
    22
         MR. MORRIS:  Right.
    23
         MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What I will do, I am going to hand this back
    24        to you, Mr. Morris, until such time as it comes in, if it
              ever does, by some admissible means.
    25
         MR. MORRIS:  I will just wind up before we get into the 
    26        nitty-gritty obviously -- I will just say that the other 
              leaflets that have been mentioned in this case are not, as 
    27        far as we can see, relevant to the main case, which is the
              fact sheet and its distribution in 1989 and 1990.  The
    28        plaintiffs have tried to show that the defendants, by
              distributing other leaflets since, in some way have some
    29        kind of extended responsibility enabling them to avoid
              having to prove that we gave out the fact sheet at the
    30        time of the alleged libel in 1989 and 1990.