Day 312 - 11 Dec 96 - Page 24
1 there is no credible evidence before the court that the
2 Defendants wrote the fact sheet in question. The
3 Plaintiffs' evidence at its highest is that the Defendants
4 may have been involved in its dissemination. This puts us
5 in an entirely different position to the authors of the
6 fact sheet in question. 2, in many places the fact sheet
7 is essentially reports what others say about McDonald's and
8 other similar multi-nationals, and, 3, as unrepresented and
9 impecunious parties, the Defendants are simply not equipped
10 to prove the substantial truth of every material fact
11 contained in the fact sheet.
12
13 That, however, is not the same as an admission that those
14 facts are not true, or substantially true.
15
16 In other words, in so far as the Defendants are required to
17 prove the substantial truth of all material facts in order
18 to succeed in a defence of justification they are faced
19 with an unreasonable if not impossible task.
20
21 No 9. Moreover, this court has been deprived of the
22 opportunity of hearing all the evidence that the Defendants
23 would ideally like to put before it. For example, it is a
24 plain and obvious fact that the Defendants have not had
25 resources to find and prove all the witnesses that they
26 would like the court to hear, in particular witnesses from
27 other countries. I did make this point previously, that
28 obviously we did not have the resources to fly to Costa
29 Rica and Brazil to track down witnesses or to pay for
30 interpreters to enable us to be able to find out what
31 evidence they would be able to give.
32
33 Still less, the Defendants have had the resources to ensure
34 that such witnesses attend court and give evidence.
35
36 No 10. In preparing witness statements (to which they were
37 then held by a ruling after the case had started),
38 examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and final
39 submissions the Defendants have been very considerably
40 hampered by two facts: (a), lack of legal expertise, and
41 (b) lack of time.
42
43 Whilst it is no fault of this court that we have been
44 hampered through those things it is obvious that our case
45 could, and would, have been better presented if we had had
46 the intense legal advice and assistance over the past six
47 years that this case warrants.
48
49 Number 11, article 10 of the European Convention on Human
50 Rights establishes the principle that free speech must be
51 guaranteed. It is considered a fundamental right in any
52 democracy. Whilst restrictions upon an individual's free
53 speech are permitted the court is not expected simply to
54 engage in a "balancing" exercise, that is balancing freedom
55 of speech against restrictions. The rights and
56 restrictions are not competing values of equal weight. The
57 restrictions are a number of exceptions to be strictly
58 applied. The right of free speech must prevail unless any
59 restrictions on it are shown to come within the strict
60 terms of article 10 (2) of the Convention. That is the
