Day 307 - 27 Nov 96 - Page 20


     
     1        out to justify the allegations in their press releases and
     2        leaflets that myself and Mr. Morris were lying by
     3        distributing a fact sheet which we knew to be untrue, that
     4        they are going to set out to justify those allegations by
     5        proving the matters in the Statement of Claim i.e., that
     6        the London Greenpeace fact sheet 'What's wrong with
     7        McDonald's' is untrue.  And it has to be remembered that as
     8        the Defendant to this part of the action, i.e. the
     9        counterclaim, the burden of proof is on them, McDonald's,
    10        and in order to succeed in justifying their publications
    11        they must prove that the fact sheet is untrue.  We would
    12        reiterate the point that we have made before, that the fact
    13        that something may not have been proved to be true in this
    14        trial does not mean that it is untrue.
    15
    16        There are any number of examples that you could give.  I
    17        did give one before, for example, I mean, we know in this
    18        case that the Plaintiffs have admitted that they were
    19        responsible for the outbreak of food poisoning which
    20        occurred in Preston in 1991 as a result of people eating
    21        hamburgers at McDonald's.  We have a witness on that
    22        subject, and I will make the point that if we had not had
    23        the admission and we had not had the witness we would not
    24        have been able to prove that matter, but it would not mean
    25        that it was untrue.  It would just mean that we had not
    26        proved it.  I pick that as an example because, since it is
    27        something admitted by McDonald's, there cannot be any
    28        argument that it is in fact true.
    29
    30        So we would say that there are really three tests which
    31        have to be gone through in respect of the evidence on the
    32        issues in this trial, and that is the issues in both the
    33        counterclaim and the main action in relation to the seven
    34        topics of damage to the environment, nutritional value of
    35        Plaintiffs' food, employment practices, advertising
    36        techniques used on children, the way that animals are
    37        reared and slaughtered and so on.
    38
    39   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Yes.
    40
    41   MS. STEEL:   Firstly, you would have to decide whether or not we
    42        had proved that it was true for the purposes of the main
    43        action.  But, secondly, have McDonald's proved that it is
    44        untrue and then, thirdly, have McDonald's proved that we
    45        have lied on each of the issues?  The point is that unless
    46        McDonald's can prove that the statements in the London
    47        Greenpeace fact sheet are untrue they cannot possibly prove
    48        that we have lied because to be a lie you have to know that
    49        something is untrue and, therefore, if McDonald's cannot
    50        prove it is untrue there is no evidence that it is untrue 
    51        and, therefore, it cannot be a lie.  Obviously, they have 
    52        to show, even if they succeeded in proving that something 
    53        was untrue -- which as far as we are concerned they
    54        certainly have not done on any matter in this case -- they
    55        would still have to show that we knew that it was untrue,
    56        and knew that it was untrue at the time of making that
    57        statement or publishing that statement.  Otherwise there
    58        simply is not a lie.
    59
    60        I was going to come back to the evidence.  If I just make

Prev Next Index