Day 052 - 21 Nov 94 - Page 15
1 I do not think that would have found expression in large
2 italicised block type as something worthy of observation by
3 readers of the newspaper. As I pointed out during the
4 argument, we have frequently in this Court, when dealing
5 with revenue cases, to decide the very difficult question
6 whether a particular profit or gain is to be considered
7 income so as to attract tax, or is a capital increment. I
8 have never know the Daily Herald or any other daily
9 newspaper, if some person has falsely stated that to be
10 capital which has turned out ultimately to be income, to
11 honour that state of things by a statement in large letters
12 in italics: "False return to the Income Tax Authorities".'"
13
14 My Lord, taking those observations of Slesser L.J. and
15 applying them to this case, I ask a rhetorical question:
16 Would the reader of a publication such as this leaflet
17 suppose that the Defendants were merely asserting that
18 there was an interesting body of scientific or medical
19 opinion which asserted some kind of statistical or
20 epidemiological association between diet and cancer?
21
22 I say it is a rhetorical question, I ought to answer it.
23 The answer is plainly, no, he would not, and that is even
24 before one starts to look in detail (as one must) at the
25 context in which that particular passage is embedded.
26
27 My Lord, I start, if I may -- I hope your Lordship has
28 managed to recover the broad sheet version?
29
30 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I have the one which you kindly handed up.
31 My original one still has not come to light.
32
33 MR. RAMPTON: One starts obviously at the beginning: "What's
34 wrong with McDonald's?" The face behind the mask, as it
35 were. "Everything they don't want you to know". Then
36 really those headings come next under the facsimile of the
37 McDonald's trademark, the Golden Arches. The third one
38 along is "McCancer". "McMurder", plainly (and we accept
39 this in context because we must take the context, as must
40 the Defendants) does not apply.
41
42 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That is animals?
43
44 MR. RAMPTON: Exactly. No reasonable person, having read the
45 leaflet as a whole, could suppose that this leaflet was
46 suggesting that McDonald's murder their customers.
47 "McCancer", "McDisease" and "McDeadly". Then one goes on
48 and one finds it starts all over again on the fifth page,
49 "McDeadly", "McCancer". I do not know that "McDisease"
50 gets a second appearance but "McDeadly" and "McCancer"
51 certainly do.
52
53 Then one looks at the introduction. One envisages an
54 ordinary reader sufficiently interested in this document to
55 bother to read it, and the introduction has these words:
56 "This leaflet is asking to think for a moment about what
57 lies behind McDonald's clean, bright image. It's got a lot
58 to hide". Skipping the next paragraph: "We're all subject
59 to the pressures of stupid advertising, consumerist hype,
60 and the fast pace of big city Life - but it doesn't take
