Day 057 - 29 Nov 94 - Page 17


     
     1        my foot in it.  The question of fair comment is, in the
     2        first instance, an objective question which is this:  Could
     3        a fair minded person express, honestly express, that
     4        opinion on the facts proved?  That is on objective
     5        question.
     6
     7        It has necessarily before the defence of fair comment can
     8        succeed two other questions entailed with it.  The first is
     9        this:  Has at the end of the case the Defendants succeeded
    10        in proving such a sufficient substratum of fact that the
    11        comment can objectively be regarded as fair?  In other
    12        words, a defamatory comment which has no sufficient factual
    13        basis for it will fail the objective test, because it is
    14        objectively unfair, because no fair minded person could
    15        have made it on that factual basis.  That is the first
    16        hurdle which the Defendants have to climb in this case.
    17
    18        The second necessary question which is entailed which is a
    19        hurdle that the Plaintiffs have to climb is this:  Even if
    20        it were an objective, fair comment in the sense that
    21        somebody could have made it on the facts proved, did the
    22        Defendants publish it on this or, as we would say, these
    23        many occasions, from the proper motive or were they, on the
    24        contrary, motivated by some ulterior purpose which the law
    25        would regard as malice?
    26
    27        So, my Lord, to concede that the word "murder" might
    28        honestly be used in relation to the slaughter of animals by
    29        someone holding strong views on that topic, is to concede
    30        nothing at all so far as the defence of fair comment is
    31        concerned, save that the word has in context the character
    32        of an expression of opinion.
    33
    34   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, thank you.
    35
    36   MR. MORRIS:  Is it possible to just come back with a couple of
    37        points?
    38
    39   MS. STEEL:  The point I was trying make is that what I do not
    40        understand is Mr. Rampton is saying that he is applying to
    41        make this amendment in order to clarify the issues in the
    42        case.  What he was saying then was that in actual fact the
    43        meanings are not the issues in the case, so we are not
    44        entitled to ask for more details of what he means by
    45        "cause".  That is what I do not understand.  It is just a
    46        total contradiction really.
    47
    48        If he should not have to explain "cause" because the
    49        ordinary reader would not stop there and think:  "Well,
    50        what is meant by 'cause'?" why should we have to explain 
    51        "link" because why should the ordinary reader stop and 
    52        think:  "Well, what is meant by 'link'?" 
    53
    54   MR. MORRIS:  To be candid, Mr. Rampton is already extending his
    55        case as we speak now, because when he said:  "The question
    56        now is, how is diet causally linked to cancer", he then
    57        said, "and, if so, in what sense?"  So, because his
    58        pleading is again more confusing than the original one,
    59        I can confidently predict that Mr. Rampton, when it is
    60        proven that diet is linked to a disease causally and maybe

Prev Next Index