Day 284 - 22 Oct 96 - Page 26
1 MR. MORRIS: I am going to move on to the meaning of the word
2 "rainforest" next. Maybe we can do that after lunch.
3
4 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes, two o'clock.
5
6 (Luncheon Adjournment)
7
8 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Mr. Rampton, I bear in mind what you said
9 the other day about not interrupting Mr. Morris. From time
10 to time I have said to Mr. Morris what I understand the
11 legal position to be. If you are prepared to, I think it
12 would be helpful if you actually think I have got something
13 wrong or I might be misleading the defendants, at some
14 convenient moment, perhaps at the end of a session or the
15 beginning of the next one, just put down a marker as to
16 that.
17
18 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, can I take that opportunity to -- I hope
19 I was not shaking my head because that is very bad
20 manners. Your Lordship said something this morning in
21 relation to the second page of text in the leaflet.
22
23 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Was it the "wreck the planet" bit?
24
25 MR. RAMPTON: No, my Lord, it was not. It was in relation to
26 the rainforest column on the second page where your
27 Lordship seemed to indicate that there might be the
28 possibility of a section 5 defence in relation to that
29 allegation.
30
31 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
32
33 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, I do not believe that is quite right.
34 If the sting of this allegation is by whatever means
35 McDonald's are responsible for destroying the rainforests,
36 that is one charge and one defamatory charge only. Any
37 evidence offered in support of a defence of justification
38 of that single charge and legitimately offered by the
39 defendants, even if it does not meet the charge, may be
40 available in mitigation of damages, but it does not found a
41 defence under section 5, because section 5 is available
42 only in respect of a libel or a series of libels which
43 constitute distinct and severable charges.
44
45 If I can illustrate that in general terms by reference to
46 the leaflet as a whole, there can be no doubt that the
47 leaflet as a whole makes a number of distinct and severable
48 charges against either or both of the plaintiffs over a
49 whole range of their activities. The court could come to
50 the conclusion that proof of the truth of one or more of
51 those distinct and severable charges was sufficient to
52 found a complete defence because the effect on the
53 plaintiffs' reputation of the remaining unproved charges
54 was insignificant.
55
56 Thus, for example, if the defendants succeeded in proving
57 that the plaintiffs were cutting down the rainforests by
58 whatever means, that they were killing or poisoning their
59 customers and that they --
60
