Day 312 - 11 Dec 96 - Page 28


     
     1        credible evidence that Mr. Morris was the author of the
     2        leaflet either.
     3
     4        So they were not our words and therefore to require us to
     5        establish the truth of all the statements is effectively an
     6        impossible task and is unreasonable.
     7
     8        Incidentally, it is worth bearing in mind that that,
     9        effectively, was the advice that we got at the start of
    10        this case, that we faced a nigh on impossible task in, you
    11        know, even getting to court but in producing all the
    12        evidence in court and so on, and that really, as we have
    13        said before, the only reason we have been able to get
    14        through this case is because of overwhelming public support
    15        and donations and people working for nothing, experts for
    16        example, and witnesses preparing their own statements and
    17        so on, but obviously our case could have been a lot
    18        stronger if there had not been such a wide range of issues
    19        all of which needed to be dealt with.
    20
    21        But in any event -- and, yes, obviously, if we had had
    22        legal aid and back up to, you know, send clerks and so on
    23        to take statements, I mean, the point being that we should
    24        not have been required to prove all the statements and the
    25        fact sheet, but, as I said, it is probably, you know, we
    26        should have made that application at the start of this
    27        trial.  But anyway, it is still something we feel is
    28        relevant now to be taken into consideration.
    29
    30        Indeed, it could, and we would invite you to, throw out the
    31        Plaintiffs' case because it is an unreasonable fetter on
    32        freedom of speech in all the circumstances that we have
    33        gone through.
    34
    35        No.13: in developing this argument the Defendants further
    36        submit that the court is entitled to take into account the
    37        Plaintiffs' ability to reply to the words in the fact sheet
    38        that it now complains of.  The reality of this case is that
    39        (A), McDonald's came to an arrangement with Veggies under
    40        which McDonald's effectively agreed that Veggies could
    41        publish a version of the fact sheet now complained of, (B)
    42        the Plaintiffs have an elaborate and well resourced public
    43        relations department, they engage in multi-billion dollar
    44        advertising around the world, they are capable of
    45        publishing millions of leaflets to counter any comment made
    46        about them, and they have in fact done so in this case.
    47
    48        That not only goes for the counterclaim, the documents
    49        referred to in the counterclaim, but, obviously, in our
    50        view, should have been on the issues rather than, you know,
    51        attacking myself and Mr. Morris and other critics on a
    52        personal level, but also that goes to all the McFact cards
    53        and McFact boxes that we have heard evidence about, the
    54        Plaintiffs' publishing, and it also goes for their
    55        relationship with the media and their statements to the
    56        media which we have heard about.
    57
    58        In balancing the rights of the Defendants to free speech
    59        and the right of the Plaintiffs to protect their trading
    60        reputation, the Defendants submit that this feature of the

Prev Next Index