Day 053 - 22 Nov 94 - Page 47
1 give me some guidance and come to a conclusion.
2
3 MS. STEEL: Yes, I appreciate that.
4
5 MR. MORRIS: I think, if I can put a parallel, maybe: If we
6 accused somebody of a criminal activity and we have
7 questioned them about all various forms of criminal
8 activity, we may have questioned them about murder, because
9 any form of criminal activity would prove our point that
10 they have engaged in criminal activity. But if they then
11 change their Defence and say that we would have to prove
12 murder, the fact we had mentioned murder does not show that
13 that is what we felt was having to be proved. Obviously,
14 it is a bit more extreme than this example, but that is our
15 position, that obviously we considered that "cause" was one
16 type of link but that it was not one that was necessarily
17 to be proven.
18
19 MS. STEEL: Obviously, if it was proven, then so much the
20 better, but it was not actually what we considered as being
21 necessary to be proven.
22
23 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. When he replies, Mr. Rampton may
24 categorically say one way or the other but, as I understand
25 his submissions -- your submissions are to the contrary --
26 the way link is used in F was meant to be as "causally
27 linked". You say you did not understand it as such. He
28 says, well, he thinks you did or appreciated it might have
29 meant that because you asked quite lot of questions on that
30 topic. That is a different issue to what your pleading of
31 justification actually meant.
32
33 In any event, he says, even if there was any
34 misunderstanding -- he contends there was not -- it is not
35 too late to replead the matter so that an issue such as
36 that which he says is important, not only in the
37 litigation, but from a public point of view, can actually
38 be adjudicated upon so that I can decide on what the
39 meaning of the leaflet is, being such meaning as I think it
40 actually bears up to the meaning set out in the amendment.
41 I can then decide matters which he contends were important
42 such as whether, indeed, McDonald's food does or might play
43 a causative role in causing degenerative diseases or taking
44 on the risk of suffering degenerative disease at least in
45 those who eat really quite a lot of their food.
46
47 But there we are. I think we are going back over old
48 ground; you have made your points. I propose to go away
49 and consider them, having heard anything Mr. Rampton wants
50 to say in reply. Is there anything more you want to say on
51 F before you go on to L, the animals?
52
53 MS. STEEL: Yesterday there was a part read out of some of the
54 old transcripts. I cannot remember who was giving
55 evidence, but there was a part read out where I said about
56 the Plaintiffs "shifting ground". I would say that from
57 that, that was a clear indication that, as far as we were
58 concerned, they were changing their case, and it was quite
59 apparent that was what was going on.
60
