Day 177 - 26 Oct 95 - Page 48


     
     1        Again, I do not believe that I need to read
     2        Broomfield v. Greig at any length.  Everybody has had
     3        copies of it.  It is quite clear.  But I would draw
     4        attention to one passage which may have been prophetic, in
     5        the sense that perhaps since 1868 times have changed
     6        somewhat, as the editor of Gatley seems to think they
     7        have.  On page 565, the last sentence of the judgment of
     8        the Lord President, which begins a quarter of the way down
     9        the page, the last sentence of that paragraph:
    10
    11             "Now if the pursuer" -- and for the Defendants'
    12             benefit, I observe that the pursuer in Scotland
    13             is the same as plaintiff -- "had been prepared
    14             to say that these words were used as meaning
    15             that the bread was calculated instantly to
    16             destroy human life, that would have been an
    17             allegation of a different kind from the others;
    18             but it was conceded in argument that nothing
    19             more was intended than to convey, by a strong
    20             form of expression, the idea that the bread was
    21             unwholesome."
    22
    23             My Lord, I really only produce those cases because
    24        your Lordship asked for some copies of the South Hetton
    25        point.  I am bound to say that I would submit that, having
    26        regard to those passages from Gatley which I asked
    27        your Lordship to look at this morning, and one's own sense
    28        of what is or is not defamatory of a trader, and the
    29        caution sounded by Gatley in this respect, it is not very
    30        difficult to see that in a leaflet of this kind an
    31        allegation -- never mind the imputation which is made
    32        against McDonald's honesty -- an allegation that the food
    33        on which their whole business is founded is apt to create a
    34        significant risk in its consumers of acquiring or getting
    35        cancers and Parkinson's or, indeed, come to that, of
    36        getting food poisoning, is defamatory in itself -- simply
    37        because any ordinary reasonable reader, reading that, would
    38        be bound to say to themselves: "These people (McDonald's)
    39        are at the very least careless of the health of their
    40        customers, reckless as to the consequences of selling this
    41        food, and they are only doing it because they want to make
    42        money, and they do not care what evil consequences that may
    43        have for the people who eat it."  That is partly based on
    44        the words themselves but, more particularly, on the context
    45        of the leaflet as a whole.  I will come back to that very
    46        briefly before I sit down.
    47
    48        I have included in this bundle Prager v. Times Newspapers
    49        and Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand, not because
    50        I intend to refer to them, but because in due course, 
    51        according to whatever judgment your Lordship gives on this 
    52        question, the question will arise: where does that leave 
    53        the evidence?  That is a bit opaque.
    54
    55   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes. Explain what you mean.
    56
    57   MR. RAMPTON:  What I mean by that is this, that if your Lordship
    58        should rule in favour of a meaning which the Defendants do
    59        not attempt to justify, then no further evidence is
    60        required on this topic; and it may be that much of the

Prev Next Index