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

Prev Next Index