Day 313 - 13 Dec 96 - Page 38


     
     1        typing -- and whether or not they have heard or seen
     2        evidence to prove each particular sentence.
     3
     4        This is best expressed by Lord Diplock in the same case at
     5        page 150 C where he says:  "In ordinary life it is rare
     6        indeed for people to perform their beliefs by a process of
     7        logical deduction from facts ascertained by a rigorous
     8        search for all available evidence and a judicial assessment
     9        of its probative value."  The last part of that, which
    10        I have underlined, is the part we consider to be important
    11        when considering whether or not we were motivated by
    12        malice.
    13
    14        8: in view of the fact that it has been accepted by Mr.
    15        Beavers, for example, from the First Plaintiff, that all of
    16        the criticisms in the fact sheet had been made by others on
    17        various occasions both prior to and since the
    18        London Greenpeace facts sheet, it is only reasonable to
    19        assume that the Defendants believed the fact sheet was
    20        true.  Obviously that is on top of everything else that we
    21        have put to you already.
    22
    23   MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
    24
    25   MS. STEEL:   Just another general point on this.  It comes in in
    26        a number of ways, actually, but I bring it up here.  If
    27        people are concerned about rainforests destruction, and, I
    28        mean, this goes for the public or campaigners, and if
    29        McDonald's are involved it would not matter whether or not
    30        it was direct involvement or indirect involvement; whether
    31        it was for imported use only, or export; whether or not
    32        lethal poisons had been used or whether it had been done
    33        with chainsaws the public would not differentiate between
    34        rain and tropical forests.  They are not going to say,
    35        fine, destroy tropical forests just not rainforests,
    36        whatever.  The point is the sting being that they are
    37        responsible for destruction of rain or tropical forests,
    38        and it is not going to make any difference as to whether or
    39        not they themselves did it or were responsible for causing
    40        it through their use of the beef.
    41
    42        Effectively, I mean, in terms of this part about malice, it
    43        is clear that we believed that the sting of those sections
    44        of the leaflet is that McDonald's are responsible for those
    45        things, and it would therefore have to be shown that we
    46        thought it would make any material difference whether
    47        McDonald's own or have control over -- and 'have control
    48        over' is actually Mr. Rampton's words from his submissions,
    49        in paragraph 1.3 of the rainforests section -- land or
    50        whether the deforestation is carried out by them or on
    51        their behalf or is, instead, a causal factor in the supply
    52        chain which resulted in the stated social or ecological
    53        effect.
    54
    55        There was a question raised about our conduct in court, and
    56        we would say that our conduct in court is in fact
    57        consistent with good faith and a genuine belief in-----
    58
    59   MR. JUSTICE BELL: Are we on matters of law or malice now?  Or
    60        are you just arguing the question of whether there was

Prev Next Index