Day 311 - 06 Dec 96 - Page 53
1 context for those things, that the writs alleged that there
2 are 16 points in the fact sheet that are libelous, and then
3 it sees 'see over', and then there are those points.
4
5 MR. RAMPTON: That makes precisely the point in my favour, my
6 Lord, because it is the, what shall I say, elaboration of
7 the Plaintiffs' complaint by the use of words such as
8 McDestroyer, McCancer, McDeadly and McSlavedrivers which
9 leads to the inevitable conclusion that not only an honest,
10 reasonable person could have thought that the Defendants'
11 response to the complaint was unreasonable but that it was
12 both unreasonable and malicious as a matter of fact.
13
14 Particularly perhaps, in one respect, in the light of the
15 Defendants' recent assertion that McCancer in the leaflet
16 had nothing to do with nutrition but to do with McDonald's
17 influence in society.
18
19 MR. JUSTICE BELL: The next matter I have in mind, which really
20 came to mind when I was not just looking through your
21 written submissions about paragraph 17 of the counterclaim
22 but considering the application which I knew was going to
23 be made this morning for leave to amend.
24
25 MR. RAMPTON: Yes.
26
27 MR. JUSTICE BELL: -- is that Ms. Steel and Mr. Morris have made
28 something in their cross-examination, Mr. Preston I think
29 particularly, and in their submissions about what was said
30 in one or other, or all, of the second Plaintiffs' leaflets
31 dealing with saying that the Defendants were represented by
32 lawyers, when it is said that was quite untrue because they
33 must have known perfectly well that there is only Richards
34 Buttler instructing Mr. Millmow on a pro bono basis for an
35 appeal against two of my interlocutory rulings.
36
37 MR. RAMPTON: I would have to go back to -- sorry, yes.
38
39 MR. JUSTICE BELL: But again, Ms. Steel and Mr. Morris, since
40 I have now raised it, may want to come back on this later,
41 but none of the alleged meanings in paragraph 17 relate to
42 that. Query whether it is defamatory anyway, because one
43 might think it is not a defamatory statement, it is just a
44 response, true or otherwise, to what the McLibel campaign
45 has said about them being unwaged and unrepresented.
46
47 MR. RAMPTON: That is all really, and again it is an
48 understandable response. It may not be 100 per cent
49 accurate, if people took it to mean they were going to be
50 represented all through the case, by such luminaries as
51 Richards Buttler an Patrick Millmow, so be it, but in
52 response to the repeated dripping on stone about how these
53 two pathetic, unwaged individuals are going to be taken to
54 the cleaners and crushed in the mangle by the wicked empire
55 of ronald mcdonald is as fair response in the mind of an
56 honest person, I would suggest.
57
58 Anyway, it is another of those things which, even though it
59 is not strictly accurate if one analyses it like a lawyer,
60 it really falls off the edge of the table when one looks at
