Day 177 - 26 Oct 95 - Page 29
1 least, that sounds as though I am inflating the importance
2 of my own words; I am not trying to do that -- but this is
3 an important argument, and I do think it important that the
4 Defendants, if they think there is anything in what I say
5 worth answering, do have a proper account of everything
6 that I have said. So I will try to remember not to go too
7 quickly, but it is difficult when I am in a discussion with
8 your Lordship, particularly.
9
10 Can I ask your Lordship to look at that passage from the
11 judgment of Drake J. on 7th July 1993 which I handed in
12 this morning?
13
14 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
15
16 MR. RAMPTON: The reason I put this in was in anticipation of
17 what your Lordship said just now, that it is very
18 difficult; and Diplock L.J. says in that passage from
19 Slim v. Daily Telegraph -- and rightly on the authorities,
20 we would respectfully submit -- that the meaning is to be
21 taken as one of first impression. Of course, that is in
22 relation to two letters in the Daily Telegraph.
23
24 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It is all right if you are sitting in the
25 Court of Appeal coming to it fresh as a short matter, is it
26 not?
27
28 MR. RAMPTON: Quite, exactly. That is the rule. That word
29 "impression" comes again and again in the authorities; it
30 is a matter of impression. I will ask your Lordship to
31 look at those authorities later on. The reason why this
32 judgment of Drake J. may have some value is that at
33 7th July 1993, before the trial began, Drake J. had I think
34 held two or maybe three -- I think two -- previous
35 interlocutory hearings which did not concern meaning or a
36 consideration of the words in any detail, but were
37 concerned with administrative matters, largely speaking --
38 as far as I know, I was not there. But that is perhaps why
39 what he says is valuable, because one sees a judge whose
40 mind has not, as it were, been tainted or affected either
41 by evidence in the case -- I am not suggesting that your
42 Lordship's has, I am not suggesting that -- or by a
43 detailed consideration, a repeated consideration of
44 different parts of the leaflet raised at different times
45 for different purposes, but somebody who has come to the
46 words complained of with a relatively fresh mind; and, what
47 is more, of course, a very experienced jury judge who is
48 well grounded in the principle that one must not approach
49 words complained of as though they were legal documents
50 but, on the contrary, as matter of impression.
51
52 What he says is:
53
54 "The Plaintiff's case is that the Defendants
55 published or caused to be published or were
56 parties to the distribution of a leaflet
57 entitled 'What's wrong with McDonald's?' The
58 leaflet makes allegations....."
59
60 -- and here Drake J. is not reciting the statement of
