Day 186 - 10 Nov 95 - Page 13
1 say is: "Well, I adopt her argument on that".
2
3 MR. MORRIS: Of course.
4
5 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I assume that each of you is adopting the
6 argument of the other, unless you say something to the
7 contrary.
8
9 MR. MORRIS: Right. First of all, I want to say that I do
10 believe this is actually quite an important issue we are
11 discussing here, with implications for freedom of speech.
12 We are not only seeking the protection of the court for our
13 interests, but also for the public interest, because if the
14 Plaintiffs succeed in what we say is basically a completely
15 -- we do not believe they have got an argument in our
16 case, but if they succeed in, effectively, outlawing what I
17 would call hyperbole and satire and context, when it is
18 clear that the text of the leaflet is not defamatory and is
19 accurate, then it will certainly have implications for all
20 the national press, the media and especially people that
21 are critical.
22
23 I would say this is clearly a critical leaflet, put out by
24 people that are critical of a whole industry and capitalism
25 in general, profit motive, and that context is always going
26 to be present whenever people who are fundamentally
27 critical of a system, or part of a system, are inevitably
28 going to put things out in a critical context. So I think
29 that should be borne in mind.
30
31 First of all, what I was going to say was -- I am really
32 following Mr. Rampton's order, so it is not necessarily the
33 order that -- I may dot about a bit -- in the Gatley
34 reference which Mr. Rampton did read out -- it was
35 paragraph 93, page 92 of Gatley, which I think was put at
36 the front of the authorities -- there is just one thing
37 I wanted to point out was it was said: "The natural and
38 ordinary meaning may also 'include any implication or
39 inference which a reasonable reader guided not by special
40 but only by general knowledge and not fettered by any
41 strict rules of construction would draw from the words'."
42 I wanted to emphasise the "may" there. Presumably, it is
43 may or it may not.
44
45 Yes, it was what Mr. Rampton said (which Helen has already
46 dealt with) about the complex construction. We noted that
47 the original meaning of the Plaintiffs on this issue before
48 they started inventing the complex construction which they
49 are not exactly entitled to do -- if I can find the
50 original statement of claim; if you remember, it was
51 amended. Sorry, the original meaning F was the Plaintiffs
52 are deliberately misleading the public as to nutritional
53 value of the food they sell -- so the issue was the
54 nutritional value of the food they sell -- when they know
55 full well that the contents of an average McDonald's meal
56 are linked with cancers of the breast, bowel and heart
57 disease. The contents can only be the nutritional
58 contents, i.e. the fat, fibre and the salt and sugar
59 issues. The issue is a link. They then went on to create
60 (which they were allowed to do) a meaning which was quite
