Day 313 - 13 Dec 96 - Page 42
1 not just consider those within the narrow status quo. Any
2 genuine view should be accepted as fair comment. For
3 example, with regards to animals, the question is not 'is
4 somebody right' or 'is somebody wrong' to judge.
5
6 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That is totally in accordance with the
7 proposition which Mr. Rampton has put forward, if it is
8 comment. If any honest person holding the particular
9 views, for instance in relation to animals, could have held
10 the view expressed on the facts set out referred to or
11 common knowledge, then it is fair comment.
12
13 MS. STEEL: Right. It is just because there was that bit of
14 argument about what was 'suffering' and so on.
15
16 MR. RAMPTON: That is in relation to justification.
17
18 MS. STEEL: Obviously, people are going to have differing views
19 on what is suffering and our view is that at the end of the
20 day we should be entitled to express the view that it is
21 suffering and that any suffering caused as a result of
22 rearing animals and meat is wrong, and that is by way of
23 example of what we consider the scope of fair comment to
24 be. Obviously, that applies to the other issues as well.
25
26 I would say that even in terms of the facts as well as the
27 comment, two sets of ideas and opinions have been expressed
28 in this court and, well, I mean, we would just ask that you
29 safeguard the right to freedom of expression and to say
30 that clearly the views that have been expressed are
31 genuinely held and it is legitimate that they are
32 expressed. The fact that McDonald's have expressed a
33 different view does not mean that we and our witnesses are
34 wrong. Obviously, we would argue that, you know, they have
35 a vested interest, and so on, and they are entitled to
36 their point of view but they should not be trying to stop
37 other people from having a different point of view.
38
39 If I could just hand up something about the law, as we see
40 it, on original copies of -- (handed). We have raised this
41 before but we have not quoted any law on it, and I will
42 whip through it. Such evidence as there is of publication
43 by the Defendants should be excluded as tainted by a lack
44 of sufficient evidence as to provenance, history or
45 continuity of the leaflets produced. None of the
46 fact sheets produced in court were alleged to have come
47 from the hand of either defendant. This bit is a bit
48 confusing. There are two cases quoted there, Regina v
49 Stephenson 1971 1 WLR, 1, and Regina v Robson 1972 1 WLR
50 651.
51
52 Now, these were given to me by somebody else and these
53 paragraphs were... I am not sure which one of these is
54 quoted from.
55
56 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Never mind, I will have a look at them and see
57 whether they bear on this case.
58
59 MS. STEEL: Right. Anyway, I will not read out what it says
60 there, but we say that the effect of this is that since the
