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

Prev Next Index