Day 186 - 10 Nov 95 - Page 12


     
     1        they will just go on to reading the text.  It is the text
     2        that is telling them what the leaflet is about, not the
     3        cartoons and not the headings.
     4
     5        I would particularly note that the Plaintiffs seem to be
     6        insinuating that it ups the initial paragraph to meaning
     7        that you are going to get cancer if you eat their food;
     8        just the fact that it does not say anything about disease
     9        or cancer or any of those things.
    10
    11        Sorry, there was actually a part that I wanted to refer to,
    12        something that Mr. Rampton said on the previous occasion.
    13        I am just trying to find it.  (Pause)  Yes.  Mr. Rampton
    14        mentioned about "over-elaborate analysis".  I would say
    15        that this applies to the Plaintiffs' argument about the
    16        meaning of the leaflet, not ours.  They have gone to great
    17        lengths to try to tie all these things together, as though
    18        people read each heading individually and then went and
    19        then searched the leaflet for the particular part that
    20        referred to that, or that they looked at the cartoon and
    21        then searched the leaflet for the particular part referring
    22        to that.  It is the Plaintiffs that are trying to tie in
    23        things that are not connections that the reasonable reader
    24        is going to be trying to tie in together.
    25
    26        He also said that in Duncan and Neill it said that
    27        Plaintiffs cannot select an isolated passage in an article
    28        and complain of that alone if other parts of the article
    29        throw a different light on that passage.  He said that
    30        referred to our case.  We say that it refers to the
    31        Plaintiffs' case.  The Plaintiffs cannot select a heading
    32        or a cartoon and complain about that heading or cartoon, if
    33        the passage in the leaflet or the leaflet in its entirety
    34        throws a different light on the heading or the cartoon.
    35
    36        I have more things to say about what Mr. Rampton said in
    37        argument.  I am not really sure -- I know Dave wants to
    38        talk about the context of the leaflet, so it may be better
    39        to do that first.  But you wanted us to comment on your
    40        proposed meaning as well.
    41
    42   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You do not have to, but you can certainly
    43        take that course if you wish and say why you would argue --
    44        if you do, as you obviously do, because your draft is
    45        different, as it were, to mine -- say why you think that is
    46        not a meaning which the ordinary reasonable reader would
    47        put on it.  But you take your own course.  Do you want
    48        Mr. Morris to go now?
    49
    50   MS. STEEL:   It might give me a chance to get my thoughts back 
    51        together, actually. 
    52 
    53   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
    54
    55   MR. MORRIS:  Right.  I have to sort of start at the beginning,
    56        because I was going to make a submission as well and try
    57        not to be repetitive.
    58
    59   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  In so far as you have a point and you think
    60        Ms. Steel said it as well as can be said, all you need to

Prev Next Index