Day 001 - 28 Jun 94 - Page 26
1 Since London Greenpeace is not a limited company and
cannot be sued, they have had to sue five of us", I stress
2 the first person plural, "as individuals. If McDonald's
think we will apologise to them, they are wrong. We are
3 going to fight them every inch of the way and are
launching the McLibel Five Support Campaign to raise money
4 and bring public attention to their crimes.
5 It is going to be extremely costly to fight this action
but we know from the past six years that we will have huge
6 public support. McDonald's are going to regret ever
taking us to court. McLibel Five Support Campaign can be
7 reached care of London Greenpeace, 5 Caledonian Road,
London N1", and the telephone number is given. "Please
8 make cheques payable to McLibel Five Support Campaign". In
large letters at the bottom of the page: "No surrender!
9 No apology!"
10 My Lord, from those documents your Lordship may infer,
first, that the shorter version of words complained of is
11 really in its substance no different from the leaflet
complained of, though it is shorter. The second document
12 -- the one I have just read -- is, your Lordship may
think, a very destructive document so far as the
13 defendants' case on publication in this case is
concerned.
14
It is plainly, we would submit, a reaffirmation of the
15 truth of the leaflet complained of. It is a confirmation
that that leaflet has been distributed all over the
16 world. It is really what one might call a boast about
that in this leaflet, and it is, we would submit, in
17 effect, an admission by the five defendants at that time,
including Mr. Morris and Miss Steel, an admission not only
18 that they are members of the London Greenpeace but that
they are or were responsible for the leaflet complained
19 of.
20 My Lord, it is right in view, particularly, of some of the
pretrial publicity which has taken place in this action,
21 that I should say some words about the purpose of this
action. My Lord, in a normal way a plaintiff in a
22 defamation action seeks damages to compensate him for the
injury done by the libel to his reputation and feelings.
23 He will often also seek an injunction to prevent
repetition.
24
The plaintiffs' purposes in this action are somewhat
25 different. It is right it is most important that they
seek an injunction to stop the defendants from repeating
26 these allegations, or any of them, ever again. But, my
Lord, the plaintiffs are not concerned with damages. If
27 this were a jury action, that might be a difficult
proposition for me to advance, because the only way in
28 which a jury (who cannot give a reasoned judgment) can
indicate the plaintiffs' reputation is by the size of its
29 award of damages. This is not a jury action.
30 In consequence, my Lord, as the Court of Appeal has
observed in this case, both the plaintiffs and the
