Day 163 - 25 Sep 95 - Page 46


     
     1        the NLRB or somebody like that.  It proves nothing except
     2        what the man said.  It has no inherent or intrinsic
     3        credibility of its own.  If the plea goes on to say, "What
     4        is more McDonald's are challenging now what the man is
     5        saying", why then, the allegation is completely meaningless
     6        as a particular of justification.  The reason being, I say
     7        this not for your Lordship's benefit but for the
     8        Defendants, that what you have to prove when you justify a
     9        libel is the truth of what you publish.  You have to prove
    10        that it is in fact the case; not that some minor official
    11        in the United States thought or said that it was.
    12
    13        My Lord, passing on to No. 2, in fact what is here pleaded
    14        is not even what Mr. Morris' computerised newspaper extract
    15        says.  What the newspaper extract says, which as far as
    16        I know is the only basis for this allegation, is that the
    17        woman brought a suit, an action, against the Company and
    18        made certain allegations, partly through the might of her
    19        attorney.  The pleading says she was sacked.  That is an
    20        impermissible quantum leap on the basis of what Mr. Morris
    21        has got in his sheaf of papers and by the canons laid down
    22        by the Court of Appeal.
    23
    24   MR. MORRIS:  Can I seek clarification?  It says ----
    25
    26   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No.  We must follow the order.
    27
    28   MR. MORRIS:  It just helps the court if ----
    29
    30   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No, it does not help me in fact.  It might
    31        help me on a purely temporary basis, but it turns into a
    32        discussion rather than argument on one side or another.  So
    33        make a note and tell me when your turn comes.  Yes.
    34
    35   MR. RAMPTON:  So far as Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, if I can
    36        restrain my anger about this, first of all, I say "So
    37        what?" Then I see what some of the words are based on and,
    38        quite honestly, I am astounded that Mr. Morris should do
    39        this at this stage in the case.  If one looks at page 46
    40        (this is in relation to 4) Mr. Morris has pleaded that the
    41        general accounting office found that the labour
    42        investigators -- I will start, if I may, with the second
    43        sentence. The first sentence is completely meaningless in
    44        the context of this case.  The second sentence says: "The
    45        US Department of Labour investigated violations of child
    46        labour laws in March 12th and 14th 1990 and uncovered
    47        15,500 violations in the service industry including at
    48        McDonald's."   What I cannot find is anything which ties
    49        Mr. Morris' computerised newspaper extract to McDonald's in
    50        this sense, my Lord.  On page 46 the extract starts in the 
    51        middle of the page, the second main paragraph: "The House 
    52        Government operations sub-committee chaired by Mr. Lantos 
    53        follows a Department of Labour sweep that uncovered more
    54        than 15,500 child labour violations in the service
    55        industry", but nothing relating that to McDonald's, except
    56        this that they are said to have said that they have never
    57        terminated a franchised contract over child labour law
    58        violations even though there had been violations.
    59
    60        That does not tell me, I do not know if it tells your

Prev Next Index