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.
