Day 002 - 29 Jun 94 - Page 45
1 national leaflet in April (which was then literally on the
eve and the first week of trial), a national leaflet, to
2 their customers again attacking London Greenpeace and the
defendants, saying that the fact sheet was all lies.
3
At the end of May, in or around the end of May, another
4 press statement was published; a detailed attack again on
London Greenpeace and the defendants and, by implication,
5 all the people that have made these kinds of criticisms as
being malicious liars. These leaflets were signed by Mike
6 Love, the head of communications of McDonald's Restaurants
Limited, who is the former aide to Margaret Thatcher who
7 seems to be responsible individually -- not individually,
but personally responsible for these vituperative
8 leaflet.
9 The defendants really had no option but to take out a
counterclaim in order to put the McDonald's to proof.
10 Because of the last minute nature of this and the fact
that the plaintiffs were very hard pressed for time just
11 before the trial started, and had to have an extra week to
draft up a defence to our counterclaim, the defence to the
12 counterclaim was only served last week, on Monday.
13 The defence is that, yes, the leaflet is all lies, and the
fact sheet -- sorry, the London Greenpeace material, and
14 the defendants know it. In any case, they claim qualified
privilege. Even if what they have said is defamatory,
15 they have claimed qualified privilege on the ground that
they have been under attack from the defendants and,
16 therefore, they are entitled to attack back which is the
whole area of law that obviously, no doubt, will be argued
17 at some stage during this case.
18 I will not comment on that particular thing but, in any
case, as they claim it is true, justification, then they
19 are now put to the burden of having to prove that the fact
sheet is lies, line by line or whatever. We served the
20 request for further and better particulars. We gave them
the chance to apologise and make a statement in open court
21 apologising to us and their critics, all their critics
really by association, which they did not want to do. So,
22 we are waiting for their particulars.
23 Up until now there is not one word of evidence about --
sorry, obviously there is a great amount of dispute in the
24 trial over the truth or falsity of the matters in
dispute. But there are areas of the leaflet and there are
25 aspects of the defence case which, inevitably, are not
going to be complete where all the burden has been up to
26 now on the defendants for three years, and that McDonald's
have not been under any obligation or burden to prove that
27 something is not true.
28 This may sound to some people as being an academic debate
over the words "true" and "untrue", but this is absolutely
29 fundamental to our case. It is fundamental to anybody who
on the eve of trial is attacked, whose integrity is
30 undermined, whose witnesses may, therefore, feel
undermined. They have a right to make a counterclaim and
