Day 307 - 27 Nov 96 - Page 20
1 out to justify the allegations in their press releases and
2 leaflets that myself and Mr. Morris were lying by
3 distributing a fact sheet which we knew to be untrue, that
4 they are going to set out to justify those allegations by
5 proving the matters in the Statement of Claim i.e., that
6 the London Greenpeace fact sheet 'What's wrong with
7 McDonald's' is untrue. And it has to be remembered that as
8 the Defendant to this part of the action, i.e. the
9 counterclaim, the burden of proof is on them, McDonald's,
10 and in order to succeed in justifying their publications
11 they must prove that the fact sheet is untrue. We would
12 reiterate the point that we have made before, that the fact
13 that something may not have been proved to be true in this
14 trial does not mean that it is untrue.
15
16 There are any number of examples that you could give. I
17 did give one before, for example, I mean, we know in this
18 case that the Plaintiffs have admitted that they were
19 responsible for the outbreak of food poisoning which
20 occurred in Preston in 1991 as a result of people eating
21 hamburgers at McDonald's. We have a witness on that
22 subject, and I will make the point that if we had not had
23 the admission and we had not had the witness we would not
24 have been able to prove that matter, but it would not mean
25 that it was untrue. It would just mean that we had not
26 proved it. I pick that as an example because, since it is
27 something admitted by McDonald's, there cannot be any
28 argument that it is in fact true.
29
30 So we would say that there are really three tests which
31 have to be gone through in respect of the evidence on the
32 issues in this trial, and that is the issues in both the
33 counterclaim and the main action in relation to the seven
34 topics of damage to the environment, nutritional value of
35 Plaintiffs' food, employment practices, advertising
36 techniques used on children, the way that animals are
37 reared and slaughtered and so on.
38
39 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
40
41 MS. STEEL: Firstly, you would have to decide whether or not we
42 had proved that it was true for the purposes of the main
43 action. But, secondly, have McDonald's proved that it is
44 untrue and then, thirdly, have McDonald's proved that we
45 have lied on each of the issues? The point is that unless
46 McDonald's can prove that the statements in the London
47 Greenpeace fact sheet are untrue they cannot possibly prove
48 that we have lied because to be a lie you have to know that
49 something is untrue and, therefore, if McDonald's cannot
50 prove it is untrue there is no evidence that it is untrue
51 and, therefore, it cannot be a lie. Obviously, they have
52 to show, even if they succeeded in proving that something
53 was untrue -- which as far as we are concerned they
54 certainly have not done on any matter in this case -- they
55 would still have to show that we knew that it was untrue,
56 and knew that it was untrue at the time of making that
57 statement or publishing that statement. Otherwise there
58 simply is not a lie.
59
60 I was going to come back to the evidence. If I just make
