Day 283 - 21 Oct 96 - Page 35


     
     1
     2   MR. MORRIS:   Yes.  Just one further point on the privileged
     3        self-defence argument, which is probably, I don't know how,
     4        I have not seen the law on this matter, I have not had time
     5        to read through the authorities, but we would certainly
     6        argue that if the plaintiffs were entitled to privileged
     7        self-defence -- well, we would certainly argue that in all
     8        the circumstances they were not entitled to it and abused
     9        it, if they did invoke it indeed.  We argue that they did
    10        not invoke it, they just invented that as a legal trick
    11        because they have not got any evidence.
    12
    13        But if at the end of the day they persuade you that they
    14        had to defend their - I am trying not to be sarcastic -
    15        that they were entitled to invoke this privileged
    16        self-defence even despite all the lack of evidence and the
    17        viciousness of what they did and all that stuff, then we
    18        would certainly pray in aid the public's right of
    19        self-defence against McDonald's relentless advertising and
    20        denial of rights to workers and animals and all the other
    21        matters, and therefore their right to distribute criticism
    22        under the same privilege.
    23
    24        And one final point, an important one, is Mr. Preston is
    25        the person who took responsibility, I think, for the
    26        leaflets McDonald's handed out and press releases.  He was
    27        the one who gave the okay for the word "lies" to be used.
    28        The question could be, is Mr. Preston capable of
    29        appreciating what is a lie and what is not a lie and what
    30        is truth and what is not truth, or is he someone who is
    31        reckless as to the truth.
    32
    33        He is obviously somebody who is an official in a profit
    34        making organisation who is professionally committed to
    35        defending that organisation and promoting that organisation
    36        in order to increase their profits.  That is the most
    37        important thing so far as we would say he is concerned.
    38
    39        But on top of that, during his questioning, especially when
    40        he came for the second time on the first day, the first day
    41        of him coming back, we put to him quite a number of
    42        examples of where the company had clearly said things that
    43        were untrue and that they must know that they were untrue.
    44        His definition of a lie.  And he completely failed to
    45        recognize that, even under oath in the witness box.
    46
    47        And the fact that he could also think that only 170 drink
    48        cups every day end up as environment/index.html">litter emanating from McDonald's
    49        in this country - 150, I think it was, drink cups - and
    50        that £3.10 an hour is not low wages, to me implies that he 
    51        is either living in a fantasy world where McDonald's can do 
    52        no wrong or else he is just unable to recognise truth and 
    53        lies and therefore his judgment is open to question in
    54        trying to justify the attack on us before the trial.
    55        I think that generally deals with that matter.
    56
    57        May I just have a couple of minutes?
    58
    59   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  We can have the break now, if you like.
    60

Prev Next Index