Day 313 - 13 Dec 96 - Page 42


     
     1        not just consider those within the narrow status quo.  Any
     2        genuine view should be accepted as fair comment.  For
     3        example, with regards to animals, the question is not 'is
     4        somebody right' or 'is somebody wrong' to judge.
     5
     6   MR. JUSTICE BELL: That is totally in accordance with the
     7        proposition which Mr. Rampton has put forward, if it is
     8        comment.  If any honest person holding the particular
     9        views, for instance in relation to animals, could have held
    10        the view expressed on the facts set out referred to or
    11        common knowledge, then it is fair comment.
    12
    13   MS. STEEL:   Right.  It is just because there was that bit of
    14        argument about what was 'suffering' and so on.
    15
    16   MR. RAMPTON:  That is in relation to justification.
    17
    18   MS. STEEL:  Obviously, people are going to have differing views
    19        on what is suffering and our view is that at the end of the
    20        day we should be entitled to express the view that it is
    21        suffering and that any suffering caused as a result of
    22        rearing animals and meat is wrong, and that is by way of
    23        example of what we consider the scope of fair comment to
    24        be.  Obviously, that applies to the other issues as well.
    25
    26        I would say that even in terms of the facts as well as the
    27        comment, two sets of ideas and opinions have been expressed
    28        in this court and, well, I mean, we would just ask that you
    29        safeguard the right to freedom of expression and to say
    30        that clearly the views that have been expressed are
    31        genuinely held and it is legitimate that they are
    32        expressed.  The fact that McDonald's have expressed a
    33        different view does not mean that we and our witnesses are
    34        wrong.  Obviously, we would argue that, you know, they have
    35        a vested interest, and so on, and they are entitled to
    36        their point of view but they should not be trying to stop
    37        other people from having a different point of view.
    38
    39        If I could just hand up something about the law, as we see
    40        it, on original copies of -- (handed).  We have raised this
    41        before but we have not quoted any law on it, and I will
    42        whip through it.  Such evidence as there is of publication
    43        by the Defendants should be excluded as tainted by a lack
    44        of sufficient evidence as to provenance, history or
    45        continuity of the leaflets produced.  None of the
    46        fact sheets produced in court were alleged to have come
    47        from the hand of either defendant.  This bit is a bit
    48        confusing.  There are two cases quoted there, Regina v
    49        Stephenson 1971 1 WLR, 1, and Regina v Robson 1972 1 WLR
    50        651.
    51
    52        Now, these were given to me by somebody else and these
    53        paragraphs were...  I am not sure which one of these is
    54        quoted from.
    55
    56   MR. JUSTICE BELL: Never mind, I will have a look at them and see
    57        whether they bear on this case.
    58
    59   MS. STEEL:   Right.  Anyway, I will not read out what it says
    60        there, but we say that the effect of this is that since the

Prev Next Index