Day 311 - 06 Dec 96 - Page 46


     
     1
     2   MR. RAMPTON:  And if the defamatory sting of the allegation is
     3        that, faced with a complaint by McDonald's, the Defendants
     4        made no reasonable response, but just went on publishing
     5        their own defamations, then there is, at the very least, a
     6        substantial ground for saying that McDonald's were entitled
     7        to believe that was true.  I go further and say that it is
     8        true; and the reason that I say that is this -- and this is
     9        the bit that I wanted to add, and it fits most neatly,
    10        my Lord, at the end of paragraph 3.3 on page 5 of the
    11        written submissions.
    12
    13   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.  Wait a moment, please.  (Pause)
    14
    15   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, before I just say what I am going to say,
    16        Mrs. Brinley-Codd points out to me that, in fact, in a
    17        London Greenpeace leaflet -- I said there was no evidence
    18        to support what McDonald's believed -- in pink 1A, tab 27,
    19        which is a London Greenpeace document of 1988, at
    20        page 55 ---
    21
    22   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
    23
    24   MR. RAMPTON: -- there is an anti-McDonald's campaign 1988
    25        "Putting the boot in Big Mac"; and it is at the 59th
    26        minute of the 11th hour, I am sorry, but here it is.  On
    27        the second page, one finds this -- I had better start on
    28        the first page at the bottom.
    29
    30        "While we can quite understand why Veggies had to take this
    31        approach, London Greenpeace believes it would be
    32        unnecessary and wrong for local groups who formed the
    33        backbone of the anti-McDonald's campaign to follow suit:
    34        firstly, because local groups are not limited companies,
    35        they are free associations, they are immune from
    36        prosecution.  Only individuals" -- and now I go to the
    37        second page -- "within the group can be taken to court.
    38        But McDonald's will then have to prove that those
    39        individuals were responsible for writing and/or
    40        distributing leaflets.  In practice this is virtually
    41        impossible to do.  Proof of this is the fact that they have
    42        never taken legal action against London Greenpeace who
    43        initiated the anti-McDonald's campaign four years ago and
    44        who have distributed tens of thousands of leaflets.  We
    45        received (that is London Greenpeace) a threatening letter
    46        from them right at the beginning, but replied saying that
    47        we would continue and they could do what they liked.  We
    48        never heard from them again."
    49
    50        If that is not the foundation for an honest belief (if not 
    51        the absolute truth) that complaint had been made about the 
    52        leaflet right at the beginning, then I do not know what 
    53        is.  And, of course, no response has been given, and they
    54        triumphantly proclaim their virtue in continuing to
    55        publish, despite that complaint.
    56
    57   MR. MORRIS:  It does say we replied, "we" being the word used
    58        there.
    59
    60   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I was going to say:  suppose I went all along

Prev Next Index