Day 001 - 28 Jun 94 - Page 33
1 plaintiffs. They say they were libelled in three
documents produced by the second plaintiffs in
2 March/April/May of this year. They say the documents
accuse them of telling lies about the plaintiffs. So be
3 it.
4 The plaintiffs' response is simple. It is this: "We
finally produced these three documents in response to a
5 huge volume of black propaganda about us which the
defendants have generated and are continuing to generate.
6 This has gone on from October 1989 right up until
yesterday outside this court. We are entitled to defend
7 ourselves against those attacks. What is more, the
contents of the three documents which we have recently
8 produced are entirely true." I say no more about that
matter at this stage save this, that the invitation to the
9 plaintiffs which Mr. Morris so courteously extended this
morning is, with equal courtesy, firmly declined. And
10 that is before half past 4.
11 I turn now to what I called the evidence, but I hope is
not really that. It would not be right to invite your
12 Lordship to give detailed consideration to the evidence at
this stage. Your Lordship would have to see it all, hear
13 it all, oral and documentary, in detail during the course
of the next coming months. What I propose do, with your
14 Lordship's approval, is to give an outline or summary of
what the plaintiffs see as being the essential issues
15 under each of the seven topics with which the action is
concerned, then to summarise what the plaintiffs' case on
16 each of those issues would be.
17 It follows naturally, my Lord, that I shall necessarily
ignore a number of issues which are in the plaintiffs'
18 view of the case wholly peripheral and an even larger
number of allegations which are wholly inconsequential.
19 My Lord, the seven topics are, as your Lordship knows
well, rainforests, recycling and waste, nutrition,
20 advertising, food poisoning, the rearing and slaughter of
animals and employment.
21
My Lord I propose to take those topics in the order (but
22 not that order) in which it has been agreed they should be
dealt with, which first comes recycling and waste, then
23 nutrition, then advertising, food poisoning, then rearing
and slaughtering animals, employment and, finally,
24 rainforests.
25 First, recycling waste. I state the issue in this way:
I hope your Lordship will think it a fair way of stating
26 it. Is the plaintiffs' use of resources significantly
detrimental to the environment? My Lord, I break that
27 question down. I answer it as follows: First, has the
use of CFCs (which were formerly used to blow polystyrene
28 foam for the plaintiffs' packaging) and, subsequently,
HCFC's which replaced CFCs, has that use made a
29 significant contribution to depletion of the ozone layer?
30 I answer that question in this way: Professor Geoffrey
Duxbury -- my Lord the reference is yellow bundle IV/9 who
