Day 283 - 21 Oct 96 - Page 35
1
2 MR. MORRIS: Yes. Just one further point on the privileged
3 self-defence argument, which is probably, I don't know how,
4 I have not seen the law on this matter, I have not had time
5 to read through the authorities, but we would certainly
6 argue that if the plaintiffs were entitled to privileged
7 self-defence -- well, we would certainly argue that in all
8 the circumstances they were not entitled to it and abused
9 it, if they did invoke it indeed. We argue that they did
10 not invoke it, they just invented that as a legal trick
11 because they have not got any evidence.
12
13 But if at the end of the day they persuade you that they
14 had to defend their - I am trying not to be sarcastic -
15 that they were entitled to invoke this privileged
16 self-defence even despite all the lack of evidence and the
17 viciousness of what they did and all that stuff, then we
18 would certainly pray in aid the public's right of
19 self-defence against McDonald's relentless advertising and
20 denial of rights to workers and animals and all the other
21 matters, and therefore their right to distribute criticism
22 under the same privilege.
23
24 And one final point, an important one, is Mr. Preston is
25 the person who took responsibility, I think, for the
26 leaflets McDonald's handed out and press releases. He was
27 the one who gave the okay for the word "lies" to be used.
28 The question could be, is Mr. Preston capable of
29 appreciating what is a lie and what is not a lie and what
30 is truth and what is not truth, or is he someone who is
31 reckless as to the truth.
32
33 He is obviously somebody who is an official in a profit
34 making organisation who is professionally committed to
35 defending that organisation and promoting that organisation
36 in order to increase their profits. That is the most
37 important thing so far as we would say he is concerned.
38
39 But on top of that, during his questioning, especially when
40 he came for the second time on the first day, the first day
41 of him coming back, we put to him quite a number of
42 examples of where the company had clearly said things that
43 were untrue and that they must know that they were untrue.
44 His definition of a lie. And he completely failed to
45 recognize that, even under oath in the witness box.
46
47 And the fact that he could also think that only 170 drink
48 cups every day end up as environment/index.html">litter emanating from McDonald's
49 in this country - 150, I think it was, drink cups - and
50 that £3.10 an hour is not low wages, to me implies that he
51 is either living in a fantasy world where McDonald's can do
52 no wrong or else he is just unable to recognise truth and
53 lies and therefore his judgment is open to question in
54 trying to justify the attack on us before the trial.
55 I think that generally deals with that matter.
56
57 May I just have a couple of minutes?
58
59 MR. JUSTICE BELL: We can have the break now, if you like.
60
