Day 309 - 03 Dec 96 - Page 47
1 the animals becoming frantic as they see the ones in front
2 being slaughtered, and so on and so forth, and having their
3 throats cut when they are still conscious, it must conjure
4 up a degree of inhumanity. It is a very, very strong word,
5 in the mind of the reader, which the reader would think
6 were quite unacceptable -- which I would suggest is not a
7 matter of opinion at all really; it is a general standard
8 of acceptable conduct, which is a question of fact.
9 I emphasise the word "general", because the standard in
10 these cases is that of the ordinary man in the street, in
11 this country, what is more, since this is an English libel
12 action. One might well find, if one brought this action in
13 Paris or Madrid or Rome, that the standard by which the
14 treatment of animals was judged was a good deal lower than
15 it is in this country. But here we are, and your Lordship
16 is an English jury for this purpose; and the right
17 question, we suggest, is, both in relation to justification
18 and in relation to meaning: does this leaflet conjure up a
19 picture of cruelty to animals which goes beyond what the
20 man in the street would find acceptable as a way of
21 treating animals? That is why the word "torture" is,
22 effectively, an implication of fact.
23
24 MR. JUSTICE BELL: To what extent, if you want to argue this at
25 all, could justification of any one or more of the
26 allegations here justify the sting as a whole?
27
28 MR. RAMPTON: Can I take what I think is an obvious example?
29 I have anticipated this in my written submission. Suppose
30 it be true that some pigs and many chickens which are used
31 for McDonald's food spend most of their lives inside; the
32 first question that the jury would ask is: does that
33 matter? That is a separate question; that is a question of
34 whether it is any justification at all. But suppose that
35 they thought that was a bit unfair on the animals, somewhat
36 inhumane, and, therefore, they put it into the pot on one
37 side of the justification. But then suppose they came
38 further down the page to the other allegations which
39 your Lordship read out a moment ago and they found that
40 those are all false. Then there is no way in which the
41 allegation about the pigs and the chickens living inside
42 could do more than take a penny off the damages. It could
43 never amount to a justification of the sting of this libel,
44 in particular the use the word "torture", and the
45 allegations made at the bottom of the page.
46
47 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Suppose we work up from the other end;
48 suppose it were justified, the allegation of stunning
49 methods or inefficient stunning methods which frequently
50 result in animals having their throats cut whilst still
51 fully conscious; suppose that were justified. Could that
52 justify all the rest?
53
54 MR. RAMPTON: No, certainly not. If it were -- I find it
55 difficult to argue this, because on the evidence of Dr.
56 Gregory it simply is not right -- but suppose it were true
57 and the use of the word "frequently" was found by the court
58 to be justified; it would be more effective in reduction of
59 damages than the allegation about pigs and chickens living
60 inside houses. But, again, put into the gallery with the
