Day 052 - 21 Nov 94 - Page 21


     
     1        certainly Mr. Justice Drake and possibly also
     2        Lord Justice Neill, have suggested that that may, indeed,
     3        be the true meaning of the leaflet.
     4
     5        The importance of all those occasions is not what the court
     6        thought, but what the Defendants must have understood from
     7        what the court was saying.  They have been in court on
     8        every single occasion.  They have had a transcript of all
     9        the material parts, including all the rulings, except for
    10        my submissions in the Court of Appeal.  In relation to
    11        that, I rely on the article appearing in the Guardian
    12        which, so far as we are concerned, for once accurately
    13        represents what went on in court.  The Defendants having
    14        allied themselves with the Guardian through Mr. James
    15        Earlingham (who is one of their witnesses or was going to
    16        be), it is inconceivable they did not read that report; in
    17        any case, as I say, they were sitting in the Court of
    18        Appeal as I spoke.
    19
    20        My Lord, can I take them chronologically?  We have
    21        extracted them from the transcripts which, I hope, is a
    22        help.  The first one is Mr. Justice Drake on 7th July
    23        1993.  That is at tab 1 at the back of our skeleton.  This
    24        is a passage, I cannot recall off the top of my head what
    25        it is about but I think it is probably about discovery; it
    26        might be about witness statements, no matter, the important
    27        passage for these purposes is at letter D on page 2:  "The
    28        plaintiffs' case is that the defendants published, or
    29        caused to be published, or were parties to the distribution
    30        of a leaflet entitled, 'What's wrong with McDonald's?'"
    31        Then says Mr. Justice Drake:  "The leaflet makes
    32        allegations against the plaintiffs, which are clearly
    33        extremely serious and defamatory.  They include charges
    34        which may well have the meanings, firstly, that the
    35        plaintiffs' policies are responsible for the destruction of
    36        large areas of rainforest and causing an ecological
    37        disaster.  Secondly, that the food sold by McDonald's is
    38        junk food and is injurious to the health of those who eat
    39        it and at least may cause cancer, high blood pressure and
    40        other symptoms of ill health in those who eat it".
    41
    42        What Mr. Justice Drake is there doing is flagging as
    43        vigorously and as clearly as he can what may well turn out
    44        to be, in the opinion of the tribunal of fact, the natural
    45        and ordinary meanings of this leaflet.  He says, "charges
    46        which may well have the meanings" and then he sets out them
    47        out, including the meaning that the food at the least may
    48        cause cancer and so on.
    49
    50        My Lord, in the same ruling, page 11, on the same date, 
    51        7th July last year, at letter Mr. Justice Drake appears to 
    52        be interpreting, though it is not as clear as it becomes 
    53        later on with your Lordship, what has been pleaded in the
    54        Statement of Claim as the meanings and what may have been
    55        said at the time (although I was not there) by counsel for
    56        the Plaintiffs.  That is at letter B:
    57
    58        "The allegations of libel, if proved, appear to be very
    59        serious and potentially extremely damaging.  For example,
    60        it is difficult to imagine a much graver allegation against

Prev Next Index