Day 309 - 03 Dec 96 - Page 47


     
     1        the animals becoming frantic as they see the ones in front
     2        being slaughtered, and so on and so forth, and having their
     3        throats cut when they are still conscious, it must conjure
     4        up a degree of inhumanity.  It is a very, very strong word,
     5        in the mind of the reader, which the reader would think
     6        were quite unacceptable -- which I would suggest is not a
     7        matter of opinion at all really; it is a general standard
     8        of acceptable conduct, which is a question of fact.
     9        I emphasise the word "general", because the standard in
    10        these cases is that of the ordinary man in the street, in
    11        this country, what is more, since this is an English libel
    12        action.  One might well find, if one brought this action in
    13        Paris or Madrid or Rome, that the standard by which the
    14        treatment of animals was judged was a good deal lower than
    15        it is in this country.  But here we are, and your Lordship
    16        is an English jury for this purpose; and the right
    17        question, we suggest, is, both in relation to justification
    18        and in relation to meaning:  does this leaflet conjure up a
    19        picture of cruelty to animals which goes beyond what the
    20        man in the street would find acceptable as a way of
    21        treating animals?  That is why the word "torture" is,
    22        effectively, an implication of fact.
    23
    24   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  To what extent, if you want to argue this at
    25        all, could justification of any one or more of the
    26        allegations here justify the sting as a whole?
    27
    28   MR. RAMPTON:  Can I take what I think is an obvious example?
    29        I have anticipated this in my written submission.  Suppose
    30        it be true that some pigs and many chickens which are used
    31        for McDonald's food spend most of their lives inside; the
    32        first question that the jury would ask is: does that
    33        matter?  That is a separate question; that is a question of
    34        whether it is any justification at all.  But suppose that
    35        they thought that was a bit unfair on the animals, somewhat
    36        inhumane, and, therefore, they put it into the pot on one
    37        side of the justification.  But then suppose they came
    38        further down the page to the other allegations which
    39        your Lordship read out a moment ago and they found that
    40        those are all false.  Then there is no way in which the
    41        allegation about the pigs and the chickens living inside
    42        could do more than take a penny off the damages.  It could
    43        never amount to a justification of the sting of this libel,
    44        in particular the use the word "torture", and the
    45        allegations made at the bottom of the page.
    46
    47   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Suppose we work up from the other end;
    48        suppose it were justified, the allegation of stunning
    49        methods or inefficient stunning methods which frequently
    50        result in animals having their throats cut whilst still 
    51        fully conscious; suppose that were justified.  Could that 
    52        justify all the rest? 
    53
    54   MR. RAMPTON:  No, certainly not.  If it were -- I find it
    55        difficult to argue this, because on the evidence of Dr.
    56        Gregory it simply is not right -- but suppose it were true
    57        and the use of the word "frequently" was found by the court
    58        to be justified; it would be more effective in reduction of
    59        damages than the allegation about pigs and chickens living
    60        inside houses.  But, again, put into the gallery with the

Prev Next Index