Day 284 - 22 Oct 96 - Page 27
1 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Treated all their employees badly?
2
3 MR. RAMPTON: Deliberately mistreating all their employees,
4 then what is said about the animals or the advertising may
5 not matter. That is the nature of a section 5 defence.
6
7 But in relation to the single charge about the rainforest,
8 if it is a single charge, whatever the detail may be which
9 goes to make that single charge, the single sting, whatever
10 the evidence might be offered by way of justification
11 cannot found a defence under section 5.
12
13 My Lord, the authority for all that is a case called Polly
14 Peck. I think it is The Times, isn't it? It might have
15 been The Observer. In 1985. Anyway, that is in 1986
16 Queen's Bench. I can't remember the page number.
17
18 My Lord, if there is at any time any point at which I do
19 not feel myself it is appropriate for me to jump up --
20
21 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I think that is the way I was looking at it.
22 Where I fell into error was mentioning section 5 at all.
23
24 MR. RAMPTON: Exactly.
25
26 MR. JUSTICE BELL: If there is a general charge and then a
27 variety of specifics, the general charge and the specifics
28 all being defamatory in themselves, one looks at which, if
29 any, of the specifics have been justified. This is leaving
30 any question of comment on one side. One looks at which of
31 the specifics, if any, have been justified and then asks
32 whether they substantially justify the general sting.
33
34 MR. RAMPTON: That is right.
35
36 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Section 5 does not come into that. But, by
37 the same token, if there is a general sting and five
38 specifics, only one of which is justified, but it is the
39 worst by far of the lot, then that might still
40 substantially justify the general sting. One does not just
41 count heads.
42
43 MR. RAMPTON: Let me be absolutely frank about this. I was
44 going to say this anyway when it got to my turn. If one
45 looks at that rainforest column, if it were true that
46 McDonald's was destroying vast areas of Central American
47 rainforest to create grazing pastures for cattle, then it
48 might not matter that they were not also doing it to make
49 pet food or to send the cattle back as burgers or even to
50 provide fast food packaging materials. That is actually
51 probably a separate charge in relation to the use of
52 trees.
53
54 And then one would say to oneself, what is the real sting
55 of that passage so far as the rainforest is concerned, and
56 one probably concludes it is the allegation that McDonald's
57 are destroying vast areas of rainforest. Then probably the
58 purpose of the meanings do not matter.
59
60 MR. JUSTICE BELL: One might have distinct and severable general
