Day 001 - 28 Jun 94 - Page 33


     
     1        plaintiffs.  They say they were libelled in three
              documents produced by the second plaintiffs in
     2        March/April/May of this year.  They say the documents
              accuse them of telling lies about the plaintiffs.  So be
     3        it.
 
     4        The plaintiffs' response is simple.  It is this:  "We
              finally produced these three documents in response to a
     5        huge volume of black propaganda about us which the
              defendants have generated and are continuing to generate.
     6        This has gone on from October 1989 right up until
              yesterday outside this court.  We are entitled to defend
     7        ourselves against those attacks.  What is more, the
              contents of the three documents which we have recently
     8        produced are entirely true."   I say no more about that
              matter at this stage save this, that the invitation to the
     9        plaintiffs which Mr. Morris so courteously extended this
              morning is, with equal courtesy, firmly declined.  And
    10        that is before half past 4.
 
    11        I turn now to what I called the evidence, but I hope is
              not really that.  It would not be right to invite your
    12        Lordship to give detailed consideration to the evidence at
              this stage.  Your Lordship would have to see it all, hear
    13        it all, oral and documentary, in detail during the course
              of the next coming months.  What I propose do, with your
    14        Lordship's approval, is to give an outline or summary of
              what the plaintiffs see as being the essential issues
    15        under each of the seven topics with which the action is
              concerned, then to summarise what the plaintiffs' case on
    16        each of those issues would be.
 
    17        It follows naturally, my Lord, that I shall necessarily
              ignore a number of issues which are in the plaintiffs'
    18        view of the case wholly peripheral and an even larger
              number of allegations which are wholly inconsequential.
    19        My Lord, the seven topics are, as your Lordship knows
              well, rainforests, recycling and waste, nutrition,
    20        advertising, food poisoning, the rearing and slaughter of
              animals and employment.
    21
              My Lord I propose to take those topics in the order (but
    22        not that order) in which it has been agreed they should be
              dealt with, which first comes recycling and waste, then
    23        nutrition, then advertising, food poisoning, then rearing
              and slaughtering animals, employment and, finally,
    24        rainforests.
 
    25        First, recycling waste.  I state the issue in this way:
              I hope your Lordship will think it a fair way of stating 
    26        it.  Is the plaintiffs' use of resources significantly 
              detrimental to the environment?  My Lord, I break that 
    27        question down.  I answer it as follows:  First, has the
              use of CFCs (which were formerly used to blow polystyrene
    28        foam for the plaintiffs' packaging) and, subsequently,
              HCFC's which replaced CFCs, has that use made a
    29        significant contribution to depletion of the ozone layer?
 
    30        I answer that question in this way:  Professor Geoffrey
              Duxbury -- my Lord the reference is yellow bundle IV/9 who

Prev Next Index