Day 284 - 22 Oct 96 - Page 26


     
     1   MR. MORRIS:  I am going to move on to the meaning of the word
     2         "rainforest" next.  Maybe we can do that after lunch.
     3
     4   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, two o'clock.
     5
     6                         (Luncheon Adjournment)
     7
     8   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Mr. Rampton, I bear in mind what you said
     9        the other day about not interrupting Mr. Morris.  From time
    10        to time I have said to Mr. Morris what I understand the
    11        legal position to be.  If you are prepared to, I think it
    12        would be helpful if you actually think I have got something
    13        wrong or I might be misleading the defendants, at some
    14        convenient moment, perhaps at the end of a session or the
    15        beginning of the next one, just put down a marker as to
    16        that.
    17
    18   MR. RAMPTON:   My Lord, can I take that opportunity to -- I hope
    19        I was not shaking my head because that is very bad
    20        manners.  Your Lordship said something this morning in
    21        relation to the second page of text in the leaflet.
    22
    23   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Was it the "wreck the planet" bit?
    24
    25   MR. RAMPTON:   No, my Lord, it was not.  It was in relation to
    26        the rainforest column on the second page where your
    27        Lordship seemed to indicate that there might be the
    28        possibility of a section 5 defence in relation to that
    29        allegation.
    30
    31   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Yes.
    32
    33   MR. RAMPTON:   My Lord, I do not believe that is quite right.
    34        If the sting of this allegation is by whatever means
    35        McDonald's are responsible for destroying the rainforests,
    36        that is one charge and one defamatory charge only.  Any
    37        evidence offered in support of a defence of justification
    38        of that single charge and legitimately offered by the
    39        defendants, even if it does not meet the charge, may be
    40        available in mitigation of damages, but it does not found a
    41        defence under section 5, because section 5 is available
    42        only in respect of a libel or a series of libels which
    43        constitute distinct and severable charges.
    44
    45        If I can illustrate that in general terms by reference to
    46        the leaflet as a whole, there can be no doubt that the
    47        leaflet as a whole makes a number of distinct and severable
    48        charges against either or both of the plaintiffs over a
    49        whole range of their activities.  The court could come to
    50        the conclusion that proof of the truth of one or more of 
    51        those distinct and severable charges was sufficient to 
    52        found a complete defence because the effect on the 
    53        plaintiffs' reputation of the remaining unproved charges
    54        was insignificant.
    55
    56        Thus, for example, if the defendants succeeded in proving
    57        that the plaintiffs were cutting down the rainforests by
    58        whatever means, that they were killing or poisoning their
    59        customers and that they --
    60

Prev Next Index