Day 057 - 29 Nov 94 - Page 09


     
     1        have brought their case, basically, has been extremely
     2        confusing, particularly to people who have not got
     3        experience of fighting a case, particularly not such a huge
     4        case as this.
     5
     6        I do not think it should be assumed that we have realised
     7        what the Plaintiffs' case is if they say it is something
     8        different to what was in the pleadings.  We had to work on
     9        the pleadings, and I think that it is only reasonable that
    10        it should be assumed that that is, in fact, what happened,
    11        that we were working on the pleadings because that is the
    12        case.
    13
    14        I do not know whether you remember that letter or, if not,
    15        I can find it?
    16
    17   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, I do.
    18
    19   MS. STEEL:  I think that is all I have to say at the moment
    20        about meaning F.
    21
    22   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Meaning L, then?
    23
    24   MS. STEEL:   Turning to paragraph 19 of my skeleton argument,
    25        our skeleton argument, as we have said there, we contend
    26        that the basis for the Plaintiffs' amendment in relation to
    27        the torture and murder of animals, what they allege is the
    28        basis for making that amendment, we say, is a false
    29        reason.  The real complaint was that the leaflet alleges
    30        that the Plaintiffs are responsible for the inhumane
    31        torture and murder of cattle, chickens and pigs as
    32        pleaded.
    33
    34        I would point out that it was on this basis that three
    35        other Defendants apologised to the Plaintiffs to settle
    36        this action -- the action against them.  As stated in our
    37        opening speech, it was on that basis that the Plaintiffs
    38        threatened to sue Veggies in Nottingham.  That was for an
    39        identical leaflet.
    40
    41        You may remember that Mr. Morris brought up in his opening
    42        speech that when Veggies agreed to change the words
    43        "torture" and "murder" to "slaughter" and "butchery", that
    44        was accepted by the Plaintiffs.  The text remained exactly
    45        the same.  It is clear to us that the reality is that the
    46        Plaintiffs are now wanting to save face because this case
    47        is in the public spotlight and because of allegations that
    48        they are stifling the free expression of people's opinions.
    49
    50        If they unreservedly accept that a person holding strong 
    51        views on this matter might honestly describe the slaughter 
    52        of animals for food as "murder", then why did they initiate 
    53        libel proceedings complaining of just this comment in the
    54        first place?  We submit that this is a purely cosmetic
    55        exercise on behalf of the Plaintiffs because they are
    56        embarrassed about the fact that they are being criticised
    57        for trampling over people's rights to express their own
    58        opinions and because, in trying to get out of the sticky
    59        position they were in, Mr. Rampton put his foot in it in
    60        his opening speech by saying that they accepted that it was

Prev Next Index