Day 309 - 03 Dec 96 - Page 53
1 cattle there -- if, at the end of the day, I thought that
2 was the meaning, the meaning pleaded at 4A, is part only of
3 it. It has got not what might be thought to be the overall
4 sting of being to blame for starvation in the Third World;
5 it has got the first of the reasons which I have put
6 forward, purchasing large tracts of land in poor countries
7 and thereby causing the eviction of small farmers who live
8 there growing food for their own people. What it does not
9 include is the second and third reasons: the power of its
10 money forcing countries to export beef to it in the
11 United States, and drawing Third World countries to export
12 staple crops.
13
14 MR. RAMPTON: No, it does not, and not even by a combination of
15 -- I was looking to see whether if one put A, C and E
16 together, they would have that same effect as
17 your Lordship's meaning, but they do not.
18
19 All I would say is this, that the sting, whichever route
20 you use to get to it, the defamatory sting is culpable
21 responsibility, blame for causing starvation in the
22 Third World. Whether it matters that there is one reason
23 alleged for that or three, I would have said, is doubtful.
24 If, at any rate so far as your Lordship's 2 and 3, which
25 are the two which are not in the pleaded meanings, may not
26 themselves be defamations. Plainly, evicting poor farmers,
27 which is in the pleaded meanings, is a defamation, though
28 it is plainly not so serious, perhaps, overall, as causing
29 starvation in the Third World by reason of economic
30 activity, including the ownership of land.
31
32 I hear Mr. Atkinson muttering, and I associate myself with
33 what he said, that he does not believe that 2 and 3 are
34 separate defamations.
35
36 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Well, is the right approach this: that the
37 sting is culpable responsibility for starvation in the
38 Third World?
39
40 MR. RAMPTON: Yes -- by reason of economic activity or -- it
41 does not really matter. That is the sting of it.
42
43 MR. JUSTICE BELL: So, if the full meaning is as I have just
44 suggested it might be, even if 2 and 3 were not justified
45 and even if they added to the defamatory impact of the
46 meaning, the only result of that would be that your clients
47 could not recover damages in respect of that.
48
49 MR. RAMPTON: That is right. But, I mean, perhaps a way of
50 approaching is, if I can put it in the form of a question:
51 if your Lordship -- well, your Lordship is a jury --
52 whether one uses the one reason which is given in the
53 Statement of Claim or whether one uses the three reasons
54 which your Lordship has just given, leading to the ultimate
55 overall sting of culpably causing starvation in the
56 Third World, would it make any difference to the amount of
57 the damages that you would award for the allegation,
58 whichever form it is put in; and the answer, I would
59 suggest, is, no, it would not.
60
