Day 057 - 29 Nov 94 - Page 09
1 have brought their case, basically, has been extremely
2 confusing, particularly to people who have not got
3 experience of fighting a case, particularly not such a huge
4 case as this.
5
6 I do not think it should be assumed that we have realised
7 what the Plaintiffs' case is if they say it is something
8 different to what was in the pleadings. We had to work on
9 the pleadings, and I think that it is only reasonable that
10 it should be assumed that that is, in fact, what happened,
11 that we were working on the pleadings because that is the
12 case.
13
14 I do not know whether you remember that letter or, if not,
15 I can find it?
16
17 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes, I do.
18
19 MS. STEEL: I think that is all I have to say at the moment
20 about meaning F.
21
22 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Meaning L, then?
23
24 MS. STEEL: Turning to paragraph 19 of my skeleton argument,
25 our skeleton argument, as we have said there, we contend
26 that the basis for the Plaintiffs' amendment in relation to
27 the torture and murder of animals, what they allege is the
28 basis for making that amendment, we say, is a false
29 reason. The real complaint was that the leaflet alleges
30 that the Plaintiffs are responsible for the inhumane
31 torture and murder of cattle, chickens and pigs as
32 pleaded.
33
34 I would point out that it was on this basis that three
35 other Defendants apologised to the Plaintiffs to settle
36 this action -- the action against them. As stated in our
37 opening speech, it was on that basis that the Plaintiffs
38 threatened to sue Veggies in Nottingham. That was for an
39 identical leaflet.
40
41 You may remember that Mr. Morris brought up in his opening
42 speech that when Veggies agreed to change the words
43 "torture" and "murder" to "slaughter" and "butchery", that
44 was accepted by the Plaintiffs. The text remained exactly
45 the same. It is clear to us that the reality is that the
46 Plaintiffs are now wanting to save face because this case
47 is in the public spotlight and because of allegations that
48 they are stifling the free expression of people's opinions.
49
50 If they unreservedly accept that a person holding strong
51 views on this matter might honestly describe the slaughter
52 of animals for food as "murder", then why did they initiate
53 libel proceedings complaining of just this comment in the
54 first place? We submit that this is a purely cosmetic
55 exercise on behalf of the Plaintiffs because they are
56 embarrassed about the fact that they are being criticised
57 for trampling over people's rights to express their own
58 opinions and because, in trying to get out of the sticky
59 position they were in, Mr. Rampton put his foot in it in
60 his opening speech by saying that they accepted that it was
