Day 288 - 28 Oct 96 - Page 15
1 from the killing line'.
2
3 It is clear from what he says on day 1 that the Plaintiffs
4 recognise that they are forced to accept that people are
5 entitled to express their opinions and that they are
6 confining their case solely to the factual allegations that
7 are set out in the fact sheet.
8
9 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
10
11 MS. STEEL: And that whilst Mr. Rampton, as you have pointed
12 out, does not specifically state that they are not
13 objecting to the word 'torture', nor does he say anywhere
14 on day one that they are objecting to the word 'torture',
15 the clear implication of the paragraphs that I have just
16 read out from Mr. Rampton's opening is that it is only the
17 expressions of fact, or the assertions of fact, that
18 McDonald's are objecting to.
19
20 MR JUSTICE BELL: Where does that take you in this case? I
21 mean, suppose that the statements of fact have really
22 amounted to this: that McDonald's were responsible for
23 slaughter methods which involved animals often struggling
24 to escape and become frantic; McDonald's were responsible
25 for methods of slaughter which involved inefficient
26 stunning methods frequently resulting in animals having
27 their throats cut while still conscious; and McDonald's
28 were responsible for methods of rearing which involved
29 chickens and pigs, or some of them, spending their lives in
30 entirely artificial conditions, et cetera.
31
32 If that is accepted as the meaning and I bring in humanity,
33 if need be, and I decide that is defamatory, and if you
34 were not able to justify that -- I say 'if', because I am
35 not suggesting what the conclusion will be one way or the
36 other -- that would be that. On the other hand, if you say
37 there is more to it than that, there is an overall sting of
38 general charge in your own words, animals are suffering and
39 McDonald's are responsible for it -- and you are entitled
40 to bring in all the other stuff that you want to rely on in
41 relation to that -- and you do justify that general
42 statement I suppose, but you do not justify the three
43 specific stings or all of them, then we would have to see
44 where that went. It might result in McDonald's having a
45 finding that part of this section of the leaflet is
46 defamatory but query whether they should get any damages
47 for it. If the overall sting is justified, where would the
48 point you are on now take you, what would be the end
49 result?
50
51 MS. STEEL: The point I am on is that I was asked to deal with
52 the Plaintiffs' meaning and what we thought of it. That is
53 what I am dealing with.
54
55 MR JUSTICE BELL: You still want the general sting, do you not?
56
57 MS. STEEL: There is a general sting, yes, which is that they
58 are responsible for the suffering of the animals reared to
59 produce their product.
60
