Day 312 - 11 Dec 96 - Page 43
1 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
2
3 MR. MORRIS: We do make the point that the manner in which a
4 substantial multi-national corporation produces and retails
5 a basic commodity such as food is an area of debate wholly
6 unsuited to the law of defamation, and especially in the
7 light of -- we have made other points before -- their
8 ability to defend themselves is unquestionable.
9
10 They could have adopted to sue for malicious falsehood, for
11 example, if they had no right to sue for libel. But we
12 suggest that, for example, corporate reluctance to do that,
13 or in this case why McDonald's would not necessarily do
14 that, is because of the burden of proof. First of all, you
15 get legal aid, the Defendant would be entitled to legal
16 aid, which can only be-----
17
18 MR. JUSTICE BELL: You have an entitlement to apply for legal
19 aid.
20
21 MR. MORRIS: Entitlement to apply for legal aid, which can only
22 be a good thing, in the public interest, and also the
23 Plaintiffs would have to prove special damage had been
24 suffered.
25
26 I think that deals with most of that. Just, finally, in
27 the body of the NUM judgment is page 3. Page 3 of the NUM
28 judgment seemingly quite persuasively refers to the City of
29 Chicago v Tribunal Company 1923, Supreme Court of Illinois,
30 ironically enough where McDonald's is based, in a judgment
31 removing the governmental powers to sue for libel, and that
32 was adopted pretty much so it seems by I think that was the
33 Derbyshire adopted case, adopted that point of view. Then
34 on page 4, line B, of the NUM judgment it refers to the
35 New York Times Company v Sullivan 1964 in the US, saying
36 that the proposition about the right to criticise
37 government without fear of civil as well as criminal
38 prosecution, those submissions were endorsed by the Supreme
39 Court of the United States in 1964. And then goes on to
40 say... I get confused, when it says -- is it Lord Keith
41 that is being quoted or?
42
43 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It is all Lord Keith, it is he who remembered
44 to the American cases and the South African case.
45
46 MR. MORRIS: Yes, and he says at line B, "the public interest
47 consideration which underlay them are no less valid in this
48 country."
49
50 I wanted to just elaborate that last point about the
51 McDonald's Corporation, does it have a reputation in the
52 UK; what is its motive for being the First Plaintiff in
53 this case? And we would say that it has an improper
54 motive, for the reasons I gave earlier about, you know, a
55 short trial and unfair circumstances, etcetera, to parade
56 around the world through their publicity department, and
57 I wanted to refer to the Telnikov case. I do not know if
58 I did actually give this in one of the court documents.
59
60 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It is in volume 1 of Mr. Rampton's.
