Day 312 - 11 Dec 96 - Page 13
1 with other similar organisations over important areas of
2 public life and society, for example advertising, in terms
3 of their employment of young people, and other aspects that
4 we heard about in this case, and therefore the clear
5 advisability that such organisations be subject to, in
6 effect, public scrutiny and criticism.
7
8 The next point to be borne in mind, number 4, is the global
9 ability, which has been unequaled in the last 30 years or
10 so, of the Plaintiffs to promote their views and image, and
11 that obviously relates to the question whether they need,
12 or should have, recourse to libel laws against critics.
13
14 Five, the fact that McDonald's issued defamatory material
15 in a huge scale on the eve of trial against the Defendants
16 and against the criticisms made of the Company in the words
17 complained of, which they say was a reaction. Therefore,
18 by their own admission they have countered, they say, on a
19 huge scale points that they claim have been made against
20 them.
21
22 Point 6. The effects of an agreement of the Plaintiff to
23 the circulation of the words complained of or similar
24 words, or, we could say, virtually identical words after a
25 slight amendment, and the words complained of have been
26 circulated by their own agents, hired to infiltrate
27 London Greenpeace and by the main publishers of the
28 fact sheet, Veggies Limited, in a very slightly amended
29 form. In fact, the only difference would be, apart from
30 the inclusion of CFCs, the slight amendment to the section
31 about tropical forest destruction by the hamburger
32 industry.
33
34 And Veggies remain the main distributors of the words
35 complained of, or the vast bulk of them. I mean, the
36 changes in the heading of the animal section is irrelevant,
37 we would say, in its effect.
38
39 So, point 7, the inequality of arms, the unrepresented
40 Defendants' lack of experience, representation and
41 resources in comparison with the resources of the
42 McDonald's Corporation. And we go into a bit more detail
43 later on about that.
44
45 Point 8, the fact that in the event of their losing the
46 claim, that is us, it is clear to all and has been clear to
47 all since before the writs were even served that the
48 Defendants can and could never make any significant
49 contribution to costs or damages.
50
51 The ninth point to be borne in mind...
52
53 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What do you say is the relevance of that?
54
55 MR. MORRIS: Because we will go to argue later on, the next
56 point really, bearing in mind all these points this case
57 should not have been brought, should not proceed to
58 judgment, and/or there has been abuse or misuse of the
59 libel defamation laws, or that they are unfair, and this
60 relates to what we would argue is the drift that the NUM
