Day 186 - 10 Nov 95 - Page 40
1
2 MR. MORRIS: Yes. We are not concerned with that in this case.
3
4 MR. JUSTICE BELL: He says that, in his view, it was arguable
5 and, therefore, a matter for the jury to decide that it did
6 impute dishonesty. Lord Curriehill was of the same
7 opinion, but he did not agree about adulterated bread. He
8 said if the charge had been of actually adulterating the
9 bread, then he would have thought that would be a
10 defamatory meaning. But, in this case, unwholesomeness,
11 actually having bread which might actually be adulterated,
12 did not impute dishonesty necessarily because that could be
13 perfectly innocent. So, he disagreed with the other two
14 Scottish judges.
15
16 MR. MORRIS: Right.
17
18 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I have to say, I do not find it a terribly
19 easy case to understand always and I am not at all
20 confident that the same decision would be made on those
21 facts today. But the case which is put against you is that
22 the words do not necessarily have to impute dishonesty; it
23 is sufficient if they impute lack of proper care in the
24 conduct of one's business.
25
26 MR. MORRIS: I just think that is stretching the restrictions on
27 freedom of speech so far that virtually any article written
28 questioning a company, you know, is going to be able to be
29 interpreted in such a way as to lead to a writ.
30
31 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It may be and then the question is whether
32 the defendant justifies what is said or not ----
33
34 MR. MORRIS: Can I just -----
35
36 MR. JUSTICE BELL: -- or whether it maybe fair comment in which
37 case the claim fails.
38
39 MR. MORRIS: Yes, on that -----
40
41 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What is the difference between -- you may say
42 you take it less seriously, but if a doctor could say that
43 an allegation that he did not examine his patients
44 properly, which is an allegation of negligence, let us
45 suppose, that, I would have thought, is clearly
46 defamatory. By the same token, is it not defamatory to say
47 of a company that it does not take proper care in the
48 products which he produces?
49
50 MS. STEEL: I think people would consider more that it was a
51 doctor's duty to examine his patients properly than it
52 would to -----
53
54 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It depends what the jury make of it, does it
55 not, but if the meaning were to be that the company had not
56 taken proper care with the result that their customers
57 might be adversely affected, is that not defamatory?
58
59 MR. MORRIS: Yes, but that is not care with the food. The point
60 is it is the care with their nutrition guides, so the only
