Day 283 - 21 Oct 96 - Page 08


     
     1        And that is similar to US law which goes further in
     2        protecting freedom of expression where, if issues are in
     3        the public domain, then to all intents and purposes, may be
     4        with some ifs and maybes, basically no case can be
     5        brought.  Malice has to be shown before you even get past
     6        stage one.
     7
     8        As Mr. Beaver said on day 123, page 12, lines 39 to 41,
     9        I asked him:  "What I am saying is the criticisms in this
    10        fact sheet are in the public domain in America to some
    11        extent."  Answer, "To some extent".  And there were two or
    12        three pages of questioning about that, and effectively it
    13        was an admission that the corporation would not be able sue
    14        in America and that is one of the reasons that they have
    15        enthusiastically joined the case here.  We say in the light
    16        of, and we will argue in fuller submissions, that for the
    17        McDonald's corporation to sue in this country, knowing that
    18        we have got no legal aid, knowing that they have every
    19        means to put their point of view, knowing the trial would
    20        be unfair because of the enormous range of issues and the
    21        basic common sense opinions that we have had to defend,
    22        that it is an abuse of process and should not be allowed to
    23        happen again.
    24
    25        If I can just further say, coming to British law, that we
    26        have heard how the House of Lords ruled in the Derbyshire
    27        County Council v The Times case that governmental bodies
    28        should no longer have the power to sue for defamation, sue
    29        their critics for defamation, because of its chilling
    30        effect on freedom of speech when it is in the public
    31        interest they be subject to unfettered scrutiny and
    32        criticism.  More recently, in the case of, I think it was,
    33        the British Coal Board -- I can't remember the name exactly
    34        -- versus the NUM, that judgment was not only upheld but
    35        extended because the British Coal Board is a privatised
    36        body rather than a strictly governmental body, and the case
    37        was thrown out before it got to court.
    38
    39        We will be arguing that multi-national corporations,
    40        because of their position, should no longer have the right
    41        to sue for defamation in this country.  Because of their
    42        influence and because of the public benefit they be subject
    43        to unfettered scrutiny.  Certainly, the minimum test before
    44        being able to establish a case should be that if they be
    45        allowed to sue it should be the reasonable belief test.
    46
    47        This case has been effectively oppressive for me and Helen
    48        not only because of the weight of the law we believe
    49        favouring plaintiffs, not only because on top of that we
    50        have been unable to get legal aid, not only because of the 
    51        sheer breadth of the issues which McDonald's chose to sue 
    52        over the right to call wages in the catering industry, and 
    53        in particular McDonald's, low paid, that is one particular
    54        example, views which probably ninety percent of the country
    55        would agree with.  Not only that but imbalance in the two
    56        sides' resources which could not be more marked, not only
    57        because we believe we have been unfairly denied a jury, but
    58        even if it be right that it was appropriate to have no jury
    59        because the sheer complexity of some of the scientific and
    60        expert evidence would be too much for a jury to adjudicate,

Prev Next Index