Day 312 - 11 Dec 96 - Page 29
1 case is vitally important. The purpose of the law of libel
2 should not be to reward wealthy organisations who are quite
3 able to protect themselves and unable to show loss,
4 particularly when such reward is at the expense of
5 impecunious litigants in person.
6
7 No 14. The Defendants further submit that much of what is
8 complained about in the fact sheet is satirical/political
9 in content or context, and such speech ought to be afforded
10 special protection either because (in relation to satirical
11 speech) such speech is by its very nature less likely to
12 cause harm to the trading reputation of a major and global
13 multi-national, or because (in relation to political
14 speech) it goes to the heart of open discussion in a
15 democracy.
16
17 No 15. Moreover, the First Plaintiff and an American
18 Corporation would not have had the benefit of such strict
19 libel laws had it commenced proceedings in the US, and it
20 should be noted that I think in this case evidence was
21 given, I think by Mr. Preston, that the first copy of the
22 fact sheet that he saw actually came from the USA, was sent
23 over by somebody who had obtained it in the USA.
24
25 The preeminence given to free speech in the US should be
26 adopted by this court. In any event the Defendants
27 question whether the First Plaintiff has any reputation in
28 the UK at all.
29
30 MR. MORRIS: I do not think -- we have not enclosed an appendix
31 there. It was only a very short thing. I was going to say
32 it eventually.
33
34 MR. JUSTICE BELL: You said something about it in your
35 submissions anyway.
36
37 MR. MORRIS: Yes. I may just touch on it very briefly a bit
38 later on, I mean.
39
40 MS. STEEL: I would say any individual reputation -- I want to
41 come back to their reputation and the difference between
42 the two later on, which is in towards the end of this
43 document. I may be saying it then.
44
45 MR. JUSTICE BELL: If you are debating who says what, I suggest
46 you let Ms. Steel finish this and then you can sort out who
47 speaks next on what topic.
48
49 MS. STEEL: We were debating what we were saying.
50
51 MR. MORRIS: And we were saying!
52
53 MS. STEEL: Number 16: finally, under framework, the Defendants
54 make the following claims: (A) that the qualified privilege
55 ought to attach to the leaflet complained about because it
56 is a contribution to an on-going debate about the power and
57 responsibility of powerful multi-nationals in society.
58 Such matters are clearly of public concern and any
59 restriction on open discussion of such matters is
60 intolerable in the civilised society.
