Day 283 - 21 Oct 96 - Page 08
1 And that is similar to US law which goes further in
2 protecting freedom of expression where, if issues are in
3 the public domain, then to all intents and purposes, may be
4 with some ifs and maybes, basically no case can be
5 brought. Malice has to be shown before you even get past
6 stage one.
7
8 As Mr. Beaver said on day 123, page 12, lines 39 to 41,
9 I asked him: "What I am saying is the criticisms in this
10 fact sheet are in the public domain in America to some
11 extent." Answer, "To some extent". And there were two or
12 three pages of questioning about that, and effectively it
13 was an admission that the corporation would not be able sue
14 in America and that is one of the reasons that they have
15 enthusiastically joined the case here. We say in the light
16 of, and we will argue in fuller submissions, that for the
17 McDonald's corporation to sue in this country, knowing that
18 we have got no legal aid, knowing that they have every
19 means to put their point of view, knowing the trial would
20 be unfair because of the enormous range of issues and the
21 basic common sense opinions that we have had to defend,
22 that it is an abuse of process and should not be allowed to
23 happen again.
24
25 If I can just further say, coming to British law, that we
26 have heard how the House of Lords ruled in the Derbyshire
27 County Council v The Times case that governmental bodies
28 should no longer have the power to sue for defamation, sue
29 their critics for defamation, because of its chilling
30 effect on freedom of speech when it is in the public
31 interest they be subject to unfettered scrutiny and
32 criticism. More recently, in the case of, I think it was,
33 the British Coal Board -- I can't remember the name exactly
34 -- versus the NUM, that judgment was not only upheld but
35 extended because the British Coal Board is a privatised
36 body rather than a strictly governmental body, and the case
37 was thrown out before it got to court.
38
39 We will be arguing that multi-national corporations,
40 because of their position, should no longer have the right
41 to sue for defamation in this country. Because of their
42 influence and because of the public benefit they be subject
43 to unfettered scrutiny. Certainly, the minimum test before
44 being able to establish a case should be that if they be
45 allowed to sue it should be the reasonable belief test.
46
47 This case has been effectively oppressive for me and Helen
48 not only because of the weight of the law we believe
49 favouring plaintiffs, not only because on top of that we
50 have been unable to get legal aid, not only because of the
51 sheer breadth of the issues which McDonald's chose to sue
52 over the right to call wages in the catering industry, and
53 in particular McDonald's, low paid, that is one particular
54 example, views which probably ninety percent of the country
55 would agree with. Not only that but imbalance in the two
56 sides' resources which could not be more marked, not only
57 because we believe we have been unfairly denied a jury, but
58 even if it be right that it was appropriate to have no jury
59 because the sheer complexity of some of the scientific and
60 expert evidence would be too much for a jury to adjudicate,
