Day 158 - 19 Jul 95 - Page 45
1 on board -- one cannot separate little bits of a leaflet
2 like this off and try to pretend that they can be read out
3 of context.
4
5 The contribution to the major ecological catastrophe and
6 the forcing of tribal peoples in the rain forest off their
7 ancestral territories is, we will submit at the end of the
8 case -- and for this purpose submit now -- unarguably a
9 consequence, according to this leaflet, of the fact
10 (alleged fact) that McDonald's are using lethal poisons to
11 destroy vast areas of Central American rain forest to
12 create grazing pastures for cattle, and so on and so
13 forth.
14
15 I do, therefore, ask what conceivable real relevance or
16 importance this new paragraph 1 could have as a defence of
17 justification, that is substantial truth, to what we see
18 there written in that leaflet?
19
20 MR. JUSTICE BELL: This would apply equally to Guatemala and
21 Costa Rica, would it not?
22
23 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, it probably does. But I am faced now with a
24 plea two-thirds of the way through the case. I have made
25 my discovery in relation to Guatemala and Costa Rica. I do
26 not have to face that problem again. It has all been dealt
27 with. Indeed, I think I have probably made all the
28 discovery in relation to Brazil. But I do not want to have
29 to go down that road if I do not want to. I certainly do
30 not want to have go down that road for the rest of the
31 world, under paragraph 2, unless I absolutely have to.
32
33 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I understand absolutely your point on
34 paragraph 2. What is troubling me at the moment is whether
35 it is not a bit unreal to have Guatemala and Costa Rica in
36 and Brazil out. The evidence on any one of them may be no
37 weaker or stronger than in relation to the other. You may,
38 at the end of the day, have a good point, but the actual
39 sting here is actually directly wiping out large tracts of
40 forest, which the Defendants do not even seek to justify.
41
42 MR. RAMPTON: No, they do not.
43
44 MR. JUSTICE BELL: But let us suppose -- well, I really have
45 expressed what troubles me. If Guatemala and Costa Rica
46 are in, on the basis that it is at least arguable for the
47 time being, can one separate -----
48
49 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, I think one probably can. Can I turn that
50 round? I am not saying this is my principal argument, but
51 it does seem to me at this stage of the case the position
52 is different from what it might have been at the beginning
53 of the case, where Guatemala and Costa Rica have always
54 been. By the good offices of Master Grant (now, alas,
55 deceased), the pleading was eventually refined into the
56 poor little rump that it is now.
57
58 If your Lordship says to me: "Oh, well, you could have
59 applied to strike that out on the basis that no reasonable
60 jury could have found what is now pleaded as a meaning for
