Day 052 - 21 Nov 94 - Page 54
1 example, alleged to be that if you eat enough McDonald's
2 food which is high in, etc., to make your diet high in,
3 then you by doing so risk developing cancer, cardiovascular
4 disease, whatever. That would be a more middle of the road
5 possible meaning.
6
7 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, it would. So far that makes, I think, four
8 gradations of "meaning": merely a statistical association;
9 a causal association at least for heart disease which has
10 implications for the over-consumption of McDonald's food;
11 an actual injury to public health amongst those sections of
12 the population who over-consume McDonald's food, and at the
13 highest, which is where we believe the pamphlet leads us,
14 "This food is dangerous, you should not eat it".
15
16 MS. STEEL: Can I just ask something? There was a bit that
17 Mr. Rampton was going on about "A defendant is compelled at
18 the time when he pleads his defence to state what it is
19 that he says is true in the words that he published and not
20 the time of day or the dates of the publication." I do not
21 understand what he was saying there.
22
23 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Say it again because if it is not clear it is
24 best that it be made clear.
25
26 MR. RAMPTON: I will do it this way if I may. There is an
27 authority to which I drew to your Lordship's attention on a
28 previous occasion (and your Lordship said rather
29 scathingly, "Well, I do not need authority for that because
30 it is obvious") to the effect that a plea of justification
31 to a meaning which is not capable of being held to be
32 defamatory of the plaintiff is irrelevant, embarrassing and
33 should be struck out. So when I said, rather frivolously,
34 "Well, it is no good the Defendant justifying the date on
35 the document or the name of the Plaintiff; what they have
36 to justify, if they are to have a defence, is a defamatory
37 meaning or meanings which the court may hold the words to
38 bear concerning the Plaintiff"; it has to be a charge
39 against the Plaintiffs. Thus justification of a general
40 suggestion that there is evidence proposing some kind of
41 unspecified association between a diet high in fat and
42 cancer of one kind or another, probably is not a defence at
43 all so far as this action is concerned. What I am asking
44 your Lordship to say is that the Defendants should now make
45 up their minds what case it is that they are making against
46 the Plaintiffs on this issue of nutrition.
47
48 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That may, among other matters, come back, as
49 I suggested, to saying what phrases like "linked with" or
50 "association with" or "association between" mean in their
51 case as presently pleaded.
52
53 MR. RAMPTON: That is exactly what it does mean, in my
54 respectful submission. They are in the fortunate position
55 (which most defendants never get into) of having had the
56 evidence, or most of it, before having to make up their
57 minds. That is partly, I quite accept, in consequence of
58 the way in which the Statement of Claim was originally
59 pleaded, but only partly, because, as I hope I have
60 satisfied your Lordship earlier, they have actually known
