Day 312 - 11 Dec 96 - Page 20
1 thought would be a three to four weeks trial, would have
2 been a chilling of virtually all views critical of the
3 Plaintiffs because of the wide scope and the basic nature
4 of the criticisms that have been argued over in court,
5 bearing in mind that the public will not necessarily read a
6 detailed judgment, as the point has been made regarding
7 damages as well, to get at the subtleties of the
8 interpretation of the words complained of. McDonald's will
9 be saying, we are vindicated about our business practices,
10 our environmental policies, et cetera, and the result would
11 be a chilling of virtually all views critical of the
12 Plaintiffs as the public will be afraid to speak up,
13 rightly or wrongly, in case they were served with a writ -
14 not in case they would lose a case, but the mere threat of
15 receiving a writ has a chilling effect on freedom of
16 speech. This is clearly an abuse of the legal process.
17
18 So, to summarise, we say that the unprecedented nature and
19 scope of the case should be recognised and cause alarm in
20 terms of the public interest and that in specific ways the
21 case is an abuse, or is unsafe, in its proceedings and, in
22 any event, that all the things I have submitted just now,
23 the above factors, those factors should be taken into
24 account when evaluating the evidence, the legal arguments,
25 where the public interest lies in this case, and the final
26 judgments, including costs and damages.
27
28 You know, to some extent, if I can just say, we have all
29 been trapped in this courtroom for a long time, and in this
30 case, and I think what I am trying to say here is not that
31 I am personally criticising Mr. Rampton, or personally
32 criticising yourself as the judge, it is well beyond
33 any...
34
35 You know, it is something that has happened that the laws,
36 we would argue, have not been equipped to deal with such a
37 case and the Plaintiffs obviously have taken advantage of
38 their ability to use the laws for their advantage. We are
39 saying that the public interest must be protected in any
40 event in the circumstances of this case, but also in
41 general in the context of the way libel laws can and do get
42 used as a form of censorship, and, you know, we believe
43 that things are beginning to develop in the law which
44 provides a framework where new precedents can be set, and
45 this case is a very suitable case for looking into some of
46 the fundamental aspects of defamation law and procedure to
47 see if it is, in fact, protecting the public or is it in
48 fact just protecting rich and powerful bodies who are quite
49 capable of actually promoting and protecting their own
50 image in any event.
51
52 I hope that none of this should be seen as a personal
53 attack on yourself.
54
55 It is hard to separate your personal-----
56
57 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I am here purely in a professional capacity.
58
59 MS. STEEL: Perhaps we should have the five minute break.
60
