Day 186 - 10 Nov 95 - Page 33
1 what another judge may have made of it. Drake J. had not
2 heard all this argument, had he?
3
4 MR. MORRIS: No. I just wanted to point that out.
5
6 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. Shall we break off there? Two o'clock.
7
8 MS. STEEL: I can maybe sort out the rest of this.
9
10 (Luncheon Adjournment)
11
12 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
13
14 MS. STEEL: I have just got a note somewhere, which -- I do not
15 really know whether this would be the best place to bring
16 this up -- just to mention about the Skuse case. I had
17 this after Drake J., actually, but it does not just relate
18 to Drake J. It is just that I think it should be borne in
19 mind that when you came to read the leaflet and when other
20 judges have come to read the leaflet, it was as part of the
21 Statement of Claim, and you knew there was a writ and you
22 read McDonald's complaints about the leaflet; and,
23 obviously, they put the complaints as high as they could;
24 so you might be looking to see where they came from; and,
25 therefore, you would not be necessarily looking at the
26 leaflet in the same way as a member of the public who is
27 just reading it to find out what it is about, rather than
28 in what way it is defamatory or whether or not it is
29 defamatory. (Pause) I am actually just going through the
30 notes that I had, and I think -----
31
32 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Just sit down and -----
33
34 MS. STEEL: I think I have probably covered some of them,
35 anyway.
36
37 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Just sit down and think about where you are
38 going next. (Pause)
39
40 MS. STEEL: When he was commenting on your proposed meaning,
41 Mr. Rampton said something about that they would rather see
42 the word "diet" removed. I just wanted to comment that it
43 was in their original pleadings and, therefore, I believe
44 quite obviously they recognised that diet was the issue
45 when they first read the leaflet or when they first set
46 down the meanings that they alleged were defamatory. Then
47 Mr. Rampton went on to say something to the effect that
48 they did not believe that the ordinary average reader would
49 actually try and work out the pathways by which the food
50 might cause ill health.
51
52 I just want to say about that -- I mean, have covered this
53 this morning -- that it is my belief that this is pretty
54 insulting to the average person on the street, the ordinary
55 reader, the reasonable reader, because they do not have to
56 sit down and work out the pathways; they are well aware of
57 them, having heard nutrition advice messages in newspapers
58 on television and from other sources. I think people do
59 have a concept of what is healthy and unhealthy food.
60 I mean, that has been demonstrated by the Plaintiffs' own
