Day 311 - 06 Dec 96 - Page 53


     
     1        context for those things, that the writs alleged that there
     2        are 16 points in the fact sheet that are libelous, and then
     3        it sees 'see over', and then there are those points.
     4
     5   MR. RAMPTON:  That makes precisely the point in my favour, my
     6        Lord, because it is the, what shall I say, elaboration of
     7        the Plaintiffs' complaint by the use of words such as
     8        McDestroyer, McCancer, McDeadly and McSlavedrivers which
     9        leads to the inevitable conclusion that not only an honest,
    10        reasonable person could have thought that the Defendants'
    11        response to the complaint was unreasonable but that it was
    12        both unreasonable and malicious as a matter of fact.
    13
    14        Particularly perhaps, in one respect, in the light of the
    15        Defendants' recent assertion that McCancer in the leaflet
    16        had nothing to do with nutrition but to do with McDonald's
    17        influence in society.
    18
    19   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  The next matter I have in mind, which really
    20        came to mind when I was not just looking through your
    21        written submissions about paragraph 17 of the counterclaim
    22        but considering the application which I knew was going to
    23        be made this morning for leave to amend.
    24
    25   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes.
    26
    27   MR. JUSTICE BELL: --  is that Ms. Steel and Mr. Morris have made
    28        something in their cross-examination, Mr. Preston I think
    29        particularly, and in their submissions about what was said
    30        in one or other, or all, of the second Plaintiffs' leaflets
    31        dealing with saying that the Defendants were represented by
    32        lawyers, when it is said that was quite untrue because they
    33        must have known perfectly well that there is only Richards
    34        Buttler instructing Mr. Millmow on a pro bono basis for an
    35        appeal against two of my interlocutory rulings.
    36
    37   MR. RAMPTON:  I would have to go back to -- sorry, yes.
    38
    39   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  But again, Ms. Steel and Mr. Morris, since
    40        I have now raised it, may want to come back on this later,
    41        but none of the alleged meanings in paragraph 17 relate to
    42        that.  Query whether it is defamatory anyway, because one
    43        might think it is not a defamatory statement, it is just a
    44        response, true or otherwise, to what the McLibel campaign
    45        has said about them being unwaged and unrepresented.
    46
    47   MR. RAMPTON:  That is all really, and again it is an
    48        understandable response.  It may not be 100 per cent
    49        accurate, if people took it to mean they were going to be
    50        represented all through the case, by such luminaries as 
    51        Richards Buttler an Patrick Millmow, so be it, but in 
    52        response to the repeated dripping on stone about how these 
    53        two pathetic, unwaged individuals are going to be taken to
    54        the cleaners and crushed in the mangle by the wicked empire
    55        of ronald mcdonald is as fair response in the mind of an
    56        honest person, I would suggest.
    57
    58        Anyway, it is another of those things which, even though it
    59        is not strictly accurate if one analyses it like a lawyer,
    60        it really falls off the edge of the table when one looks at

Prev Next Index