Day 312 - 11 Dec 96 - Page 18


     
     1        It is instructive, we say, to look at the position in the
     2        USA where a case of this kind could not have been brought
     3        where the burden of proof is on the Plaintiffs; where
     4        malice has to be demonstrated by the Plaintiffs before an
     5        action can be founded - that relates to damages; where
     6        there exists a public interest defence and a public profile
     7        of the Plaintiffs' defence and where satire, eg political
     8        cartoons and satirical hyperbole in headings, is protected
     9        speech.  I have not attached the statement of Attorney Reed
    10        Millsaps, but that is one of the statements from the
    11        defence, one of the witness statements that we have
    12        disclosed, which should be in your file.
    13
    14        And we are going to develop, after Ms. Steel has dealt with
    15        some other matters on legal framework, we are going to go
    16        into the House of Lords ruling in the NUM case.  In fact,
    17        we are going to go into the NUM case because it seems to
    18        supersede or develop further the Derbyshire case and, of
    19        course, the implications of European law.
    20
    21        In fact, the NUM case refers to US law as well so I will
    22        leave any further comment on that for the moment.
    23
    24        Point 9.  In the context of the publication of the words
    25        complained of, the following points constitute an abuse of
    26        procedure and the principles of natural justice: firstly,
    27        the Defendants clearly had no part in the writing or
    28        printing of the fact sheet, you may think.  I mean,
    29        obviously, the Plaintiffs have tried to concoct some
    30        evidence on that, but we say it is pretty clear.
    31
    32        Secondly, the views contained in the words complained of
    33        were nothing new when written and clearly compiled from a
    34        number of pre-existing sources.  These are all relevant
    35        points in terms of European law and natural law, we would
    36        argue.
    37
    38        Thirdly, that McDonald's came to an agreement in 1987 with
    39        the main producers and publishers of the words complained
    40        of effectively sanctioning the distribution from 1987 until
    41        the present day of almost all of the alleged libelous
    42        material in its detail, design and context, including the
    43        cartoon theme, satirical cartoons and headings.
    44
    45        Again, this is part of it, we believe this is a clear case
    46        of abuse of the procedures to found a case in the light of
    47        this material that has come out during the trial and these
    48        facts that have come out during the trial.
    49
    50        Fourthly, on this point, which is point 9, the delay in
    51        bringing the proceedings.  The delay of four years from the
    52        publication of the document by London Greenpeace before the
    53        writs were served and then the delay in the Plaintiffs
    54        applying for pre-trial directions.  There was a whole
    55        period where things moved very slowly for, I think, a
    56        couple of years.  There was the further delay, of course,
    57        where the Plaintiffs had infiltrated London Greenpeace in
    58        October 1989 and yet did not bring a case until a year
    59        later.
    60

Prev Next Index