Day 309 - 03 Dec 96 - Page 35
1 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I have not got anywhere near justification
2 yet. I am just dealing with meaning. I think you must sit
3 down.
4
5 MR. MORRIS: But I think that meanings are being artificially
6 constructed to try to create -----
7
8 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I am sorry, I am not going to let you argue
9 in the middle of Mr. Rampton's submissions.
10
11 MR. RAMPTON: Mr. Morris has just suggested a different leaflet
12 for another occasion -- that is all I would say about that
13 intervention -- not this one.
14
15 MR. JUSTICE BELL: If you were right, that there are two parts
16 to it, exploitation of children by seductive means and
17 exposing them to risk as a result, can one justify one but
18 not the other?
19
20 MR. RAMPTON: Yes -- because, in context, the two stings are
21 both defamatory. Obviously, the seductive advertising is;
22 but so, too, is the exposure to risk, because, as it is in
23 relation to food poisoning and selling very unhealthy food,
24 it must be taken that any ordinary reader would take it
25 that McDonald's knows it. That is what the pleading says.
26
27 MR. JUSTICE BELL: So, one could end up with this situation,
28 that judge or jury could say, "Well, I think the allegation
29 that McDonald's take advantage of the susceptibility of
30 children in order to sell their food via pressure on their
31 parents is justified, but I do not think doing that in
32 order to harm their health is."
33
34 MR. RAMPTON: Or knowing that there is a risk to their health.
35
36 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Or knowing that there is a risk to their
37 health.
38
39 MR. RAMPTON: They could say, "Well, I do not like the
40 advertising. I think it is wrong, and I think it is
41 morally objectionable, for a number of reasons. But, in
42 fact, all that happens is that the parents buy the food for
43 the children, and there is no long term consequence to
44 their health." But that would still be a successful
45 justification of the -----
46
47 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Of part of the defamatory thrust of the
48 leaflet, if that is what I thought it was.
49
50 MR. RAMPTON: Yes. It is a distinct complaint in the Statement
51 of Claim. It is meaning (J). The two are split up to some
52 extent, (J) and (K).
53
54 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. I think we will break off there and
55 resume at two o'clock.
56
57
58
59 (Luncheon Adjournment)
60
