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
