Day 283 - 21 Oct 96 - Page 33
1 were just so overwhelmed by this, you know, outrageous
2 barrage of criticism.
3
4 We are talking about a carefully considered, carefully
5 timed and manufactured PR campaign after meetings held
6 between company executives and their PR firm, as we have
7 heard in this case, where every word was carefully
8 considered and amended and approved by the president, Paul
9 Preston.
10
11 And in those circumstances there can be no, whatever the
12 spirit, I can't see any spirit behind the law giving an
13 option for privileged self-defence except if it be fair.
14 It could only be fair if it was kind of instinctive or
15 emotional reaction where somebody is not expected to be
16 rational in the circumstances. And there could not have
17 been a more rational and considered and measured response,
18 if indeed it was a response.
19
20 In fact, the fact sheets that have been distributed have
21 been distributed many years previously. Leaflets of all
22 different kinds had been circulating and are still being
23 circulated. And McDonald's chose to do what they did on
24 the eve of the trial.
25
26 McDonald's further - and this, I think, was a very
27 significant admission by Mr. Rampton - admitted that they
28 did not have one shred of evidence that anybody handed out
29 the fact sheet since mid 1990 up until the beginning of the
30 trial. And they called a witness to say on the first day
31 of trial that somebody who they do not know handed out a
32 fact sheet to somebody they do not know and they did not
33 know that the defendants had suggested it or what. The
34 point being that the counterclaim was already put in
35 despite that piece of non-evidence, we would say, is
36 irrelevant anyway, but the point being that McDonald's have
37 attacked the fact sheet specifically in their press
38 releases and yet have not one shred of evidence that it was
39 handed out in four years, at least four years.
40
41 Of course it is our case that the fact sheet went out of
42 print in early 1990, in any event. So their attack on the
43 fact sheet can only have been an attempt to discredit the
44 defendants and the defence in general and McDonald's
45 critics in general on the eve of the trial. It was not a
46 response to anything which they would be entitled to issue
47 vicious and malicious and inaccurate material about.
48
49 While we are on the subject, the only other example will be
50 that McDonald's claim the fact sheet has ever been handed
51 out since mid 1990, since their spys, in fact, their
52 infiltrators admitted handing it out, is the launch of
53 Mcspotlight, the Internet site. And Helen was questioned
54 about that in the witness box and said that she was unaware
55 that the fact sheet, if indeed it was, was available on
56 that site.
57
58 In any event, around about the same time Mrs. Brinley-Codd
59 handed out a copy of the fact sheet to a member of the
60 public and evidence was heard on that. It has not been
