Day 307 - 27 Nov 96 - Page 61


     
     1        what our -----
     2
     3   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Yes, you have, but you never actually got
     4        round to asking me to dismiss the action or stay it because
     5        neither of the Plaintiffs has any right to sue at all.
     6
     7   MR. MORRIS:   What we are going to say is that, whether this
     8        case should, you know, be abandoned from this minute is
     9        another question, but the point is that the law should be
    10        more robust in protecting the public's right and ability to
    11        criticise certain organisations -- and this relates to the
    12        counterclaim, because they are saying in this case that two
    13        members of the public have done something which
    14        necessitates this huge attack by McDonald's on us on the
    15        eve of trial; and we are saying that, in the light of
    16        increasing judgments in this direction, where certain
    17        bodies should be considered to be robust enough and of
    18        public significance, whereas they should not be able to sue
    19        for libel, it is even more important that they should not
    20        be able to use this privileged self-defence; that, in fact,
    21        the privileged self-defence should apply to members of the
    22        public.  So, if people were criticising McDonald's on the
    23        eve of the trial, such as McDonald's are saying, the public
    24        who are doing that should be protected in their right to
    25        participate in the debate and not be -- this privileged
    26        self-defence where they can be attacked, where the laws are
    27        suspended for the public in this case -- sorry.  Can you
    28        see what I am saying?  It is like a mirror image, where
    29        McDonald's are arguing for a privilege which they are not
    30        entitled to, but which the public is entitled to, the
    31        privilege to have protection from legal action to suppress
    32        valid criticism, or whatever.
    33
    34        Can I just say one last thing:  why it was particularly
    35        important that the public and the press be able to express
    36        views about this trial and the issues in this trial before
    37        the trial started, and why McDonald's were seeking to
    38        suppress that, the reason it was so important was because
    39        McDonald's, up to that moment, had achieved dozens (if not
    40        scores) of apologies and climb downs and had never had a
    41        case before in court; and we have seen how some of these
    42        apologies were clearly what we would describe as false
    43        apologies, based upon false premises, and that had had an
    44        effect in this country of chilling the freedom of speech
    45        and removing the right of the public to criticise
    46        McDonald's on rainforests or on animals or trade unions, or
    47        whatever -- the cases that we heard about -- and,
    48        therefore, what was effectively being created was a climate
    49        of intimidation.  Therefore, there should be protection on
    50        the public's right around the trial to express their views 
    51        about the issues that were coming up in this case.  That is 
    52        what McDonald's were trying to do, trying to intervene with 
    53        this leaflet and press releases to attack views about the
    54        issues as lies and to inhibit reporting, to lower our
    55        reputation in the eyes of that public, when they should be
    56        listening to what we are saying because we are half of the
    57        case in this courtroom.  McDonald's are quite capable of
    58        putting their views night and day to the whole world, and
    59        we have one opportunity here to stand up and put our point
    60        of view, as we have done.

Prev Next Index