Day 311 - 06 Dec 96 - Page 39
1 when they have attempted to damage McDonald's by generating
2 adverse publicity, for example, and one's mind has become
3 increasingly convinced that McDonald's itself is only a
4 target by accident, that they have some ulterior or hidden
5 agenda which includes smashing McDonald's -- what it might
6 be, I do not know -- but to which the actual truth of the
7 allegations in the leaflet is a subsidiary consideration.
8
9 My Lord, it is for that reason that we place -- and I say
10 this, or let me say -- particular emphasis on what
11 Lord Esher said in The Royal Aquarium v. Parkinson, in that
12 passage set out on page 8.
13
14 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I remember that.
15
16 MR. RAMPTON: I say that -----
17
18 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I have that very much in mind. It is not
19 conclusive. It may be very persuasive, and it is a matter
20 one has to take into -----
21
22 MR. RAMPTON: I recommend your Lordship to look at the way in
23 which this case (which was approved) was dealt with by
24 Lord Diplock in Horrocks v. Lowe. I think the reference is
25 -----
26
27 MR. JUSTICE BELL: He is rather stronger than the Aquarium case,
28 is he not? If you took what Lord Diplock said strictly,
29 malice would follow the making of statements which you knew
30 to be untrue.
31
32 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, I agree, if I were selective about
33 Lord Diplock's speech in that case -- and I think his was
34 the opinion of the whole House -- I could say that it was
35 stronger. But one has to be fair about it. Really, there
36 is no distinction of principle between the Royal Aquarium
37 case and Horrocks v. Lowe. It is always a question of fact
38 and degree in each case for the jury, or the judge if there
39 is not a jury: what do they really feel in their bones was
40 the defendant's principal motive for these publications?
41
42 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
43
44 MR. RAMPTON: I really cannot push it any further than that. Of
45 course they have to look at the evidence; they cannot close
46 their eyes to the evidence. If the conclusion is -----
47
48 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That is why I asked the very first question
49 I did.
50
51 MR. RAMPTON: Yes.
52
53 MR. JUSTICE BELL: If it is a mixture of genuine feeling for
54 animals and employees, on the one hand, but a genuine, very
55 strong distaste for McDonald's themselves for -- let us
56 suppose, for the purpose of posing the question --
57 illegitimate reasons ---
58
59 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, exactly.
60
