Day 309 - 03 Dec 96 - Page 53


     
     1        cattle there -- if, at the end of the day, I thought that
     2        was the meaning, the meaning pleaded at 4A, is part only of
     3        it.  It has got not what might be thought to be the overall
     4        sting of being to blame for starvation in the Third World;
     5        it has got the first of the reasons which I have put
     6        forward, purchasing large tracts of land in poor countries
     7        and thereby causing the eviction of small farmers who live
     8        there growing food for their own people.  What it does not
     9        include is the second and third reasons:  the power of its
    10        money forcing countries to export beef to it in the
    11        United States, and drawing Third World countries to export
    12        staple crops.
    13
    14   MR. RAMPTON:  No, it does not, and not even by a combination of
    15        -- I was looking to see whether if one put A, C and E
    16        together, they would have that same effect as
    17        your Lordship's meaning, but they do not.
    18
    19        All I would say is this, that the sting, whichever route
    20        you use to get to it, the defamatory sting is culpable
    21        responsibility, blame for causing starvation in the
    22        Third World.  Whether it matters that there is one reason
    23        alleged for that or three, I would have said, is doubtful.
    24        If, at any rate so far as your Lordship's 2 and 3, which
    25        are the two which are not in the pleaded meanings, may not
    26        themselves be defamations.  Plainly, evicting poor farmers,
    27        which is in the pleaded meanings, is a defamation, though
    28        it is plainly not so serious, perhaps, overall, as causing
    29        starvation in the Third World by reason of economic
    30        activity, including the ownership of land.
    31
    32        I hear Mr. Atkinson muttering, and I associate myself with
    33        what he said, that he does not believe that 2 and 3 are
    34        separate defamations.
    35
    36   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Well, is the right approach this:  that the
    37        sting is culpable responsibility for starvation in the
    38        Third World?
    39
    40   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes -- by reason of economic activity or -- it
    41        does not really matter.  That is the sting of it.
    42
    43   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  So, if the full meaning is as I have just
    44        suggested it might be, even if 2 and 3 were not justified
    45        and even if they added to the defamatory impact of the
    46        meaning, the only result of that would be that your clients
    47        could not recover damages in respect of that.
    48
    49   MR. RAMPTON:  That is right.  But, I mean, perhaps a way of
    50        approaching is, if I can put it in the form of a question: 
    51        if your Lordship -- well, your Lordship is a jury -- 
    52        whether one uses the one reason which is given in the 
    53        Statement of Claim or whether one uses the three reasons
    54        which your Lordship has just given, leading to the ultimate
    55        overall sting of culpably causing starvation in the
    56        Third World, would it make any difference to the amount of
    57        the damages that you would award for the allegation,
    58        whichever form it is put in; and the answer, I would
    59        suggest, is, no, it would not.
    60

Prev Next Index