Day 312 - 11 Dec 96 - Page 18
1 It is instructive, we say, to look at the position in the
2 USA where a case of this kind could not have been brought
3 where the burden of proof is on the Plaintiffs; where
4 malice has to be demonstrated by the Plaintiffs before an
5 action can be founded - that relates to damages; where
6 there exists a public interest defence and a public profile
7 of the Plaintiffs' defence and where satire, eg political
8 cartoons and satirical hyperbole in headings, is protected
9 speech. I have not attached the statement of Attorney Reed
10 Millsaps, but that is one of the statements from the
11 defence, one of the witness statements that we have
12 disclosed, which should be in your file.
13
14 And we are going to develop, after Ms. Steel has dealt with
15 some other matters on legal framework, we are going to go
16 into the House of Lords ruling in the NUM case. In fact,
17 we are going to go into the NUM case because it seems to
18 supersede or develop further the Derbyshire case and, of
19 course, the implications of European law.
20
21 In fact, the NUM case refers to US law as well so I will
22 leave any further comment on that for the moment.
23
24 Point 9. In the context of the publication of the words
25 complained of, the following points constitute an abuse of
26 procedure and the principles of natural justice: firstly,
27 the Defendants clearly had no part in the writing or
28 printing of the fact sheet, you may think. I mean,
29 obviously, the Plaintiffs have tried to concoct some
30 evidence on that, but we say it is pretty clear.
31
32 Secondly, the views contained in the words complained of
33 were nothing new when written and clearly compiled from a
34 number of pre-existing sources. These are all relevant
35 points in terms of European law and natural law, we would
36 argue.
37
38 Thirdly, that McDonald's came to an agreement in 1987 with
39 the main producers and publishers of the words complained
40 of effectively sanctioning the distribution from 1987 until
41 the present day of almost all of the alleged libelous
42 material in its detail, design and context, including the
43 cartoon theme, satirical cartoons and headings.
44
45 Again, this is part of it, we believe this is a clear case
46 of abuse of the procedures to found a case in the light of
47 this material that has come out during the trial and these
48 facts that have come out during the trial.
49
50 Fourthly, on this point, which is point 9, the delay in
51 bringing the proceedings. The delay of four years from the
52 publication of the document by London Greenpeace before the
53 writs were served and then the delay in the Plaintiffs
54 applying for pre-trial directions. There was a whole
55 period where things moved very slowly for, I think, a
56 couple of years. There was the further delay, of course,
57 where the Plaintiffs had infiltrated London Greenpeace in
58 October 1989 and yet did not bring a case until a year
59 later.
60
