Day 186 - 10 Nov 95 - Page 14


     
     1        complex, a complex construction, dramatically elevating the
     2        burden of proof on us as well.
     3
     4        So their first impression -- bearing in mind that they are
     5        the Plaintiffs and they would take a maximum position from
     6        their first impression -- was that it was about the
     7        contents of McDonald's food and the links between
     8        nutritional -- basically, they are talking about
     9        nutritional value , which is exactly of course what that
    10        paragraph is about, the nutritional value or otherwise of
    11        that kind of food.
    12
    13        So that is that.  I think we are going to look at the
    14        "bread" case.  I cannot remember what it was called.
    15        A bit later on, Helen is going to deal with that.  If
    16        I can just say, as it comes in the order that Mr. Rampton
    17        dealt with it, that Mr. Rampton accepted that merely
    18        criticising food products even in -- I think it is what the
    19        "bread" case says -- even in the most forthright and
    20        fundamental terms, such as in that case, is not
    21        defamatory.  He said there is some kind of hierarchy of
    22        additional meaning that implies incompetence, negligence,
    23        recklessness, deliberate malpractice, fraud and
    24        dishonesty -- the first one of those at the bottom, ending
    25        up with fraud and dishonesty.
    26
    27        We would say that the leaflet is clearly not defamatory,
    28        that there is a right to criticise food products and diet
    29        -- which, in any case, it is only being criticised as part
    30        of the diet -- and, in fact, the leaflet is very mild
    31        compared to the "bread" case.  There is no allegation in
    32        the leaflet of fraud or adulteration.  The criticism that
    33        is made of McDonald's is not of their food, in effect; it
    34        is of their nutrition guide, saying it does not give all
    35        the facts.  Therefore, it is not saying that their food is
    36        adulterated or it is not what they claim it is, in terms of
    37        the actual content of the food.  It is not saying that they
    38        are lying about their food.  It is talking about the public
    39        policy issues surrounding that kind of food.
    40
    41        Therefore, there is no allegation in the leaflet which
    42        could possibly make the genuine and protected criticisms of
    43        food products into a defamatory meaning.  The criticisms
    44        are of the nutrition guide and, obviously, of diet in
    45        general.  We will come to that case maybe a bit later on.
    46
    47        Coming back to the actual character of the fact sheet, we
    48        would say it is clearly a reference document for people who
    49        are interested in the issues.  Incidentally, I believe the
    50        allegation against me is that I was in a room when it was 
    51        on the table, and that I put it in a letter or some letters 
    52        and mailed it out to enquirers. 
    53
    54        So I would say it has the character of a specialist
    55        document.  Just as if something appeared in The Times or
    56        The Guardian, or something, a reasonable reader would be
    57        expected to read it carefully, and if there was anything
    58        complicated or contradictory or things that are open to
    59        interpretation, and yet they would be expected to read it
    60        twice.  We would say a reasonable reader clearly would be

Prev Next Index