Day 313 - 13 Dec 96 - Page 36
1 (2): it should be noted in any event that the expression of
2 a desire to get rid of multi-nationals such as McDonald's
3 is, in fact, consistent with genuine concern for the effect
4 of the activities of such multi-nationals, i.e. damage to
5 the planet and exploitation of people and animals. And if
6 you read Horrocks v Low, 1975 Appeal Cases 135 page 150 H
7 to 151 B, that case is actually in the legal submissions
8 volume 1 of the Plaintiffs.
9
10 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
11
12 MS. STEEL: And although this case refers to malice being used
13 to defeat privilege, we would submit that it a relevant
14 test for whether express malice has been proved for the
15 purpose of defeating a pleading of fair comment. It also
16 appears that the Plaintiffs accept this. If you look at
17 Mr. Rampton's submission on malice, paragraphs 8 to 10.
18
19 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I do not think there is any doubt about that.
20
21 MS. STEEL: Right. Anyway, at that particular reference Lord
22 Diplock said that "judges and jury should, however, be very
23 slow to draw the inference that a defendant was so far
24 actuated by improper motives as to deprive him of the
25 protection of the privilege unless they are satisfied that
26 he did not believe that what he said or wrote was true, or
27 that he was indifferent to its truth or falsity", and we
28 say that must be even more so for mere distribution of
29 material which has been written by somebody else.
30
31 Continuing with Lord Diplock: "The motives with which human
32 beings act are mixed. They find it difficult to hate the
33 sin but love the sinner. Qualified privilege" -- and we
34 would argue fair comment as well -- "would be illusionary
35 and the public interest that it is meant to serve defeated
36 if the protection which it affords were lost merely because
37 a person, although acting in compliance with a duty or in
38 protection of a legitimate interest, i.e. expressing an
39 opinion on a matter of public interest, disliked the
40 person" -- and we would say or a corporation -- "who he
41 defamed or was indignant at what he believed to be that
42 person's" -- or corporation's -- "conduct, and welcomed the
43 opportunity of exposing it. It is only where his desire to
44 comply with the relevant duty or to protect the relevant
45 interest plays no significant part in his motives from
46 publishing what he believes to be true that 'express
47 malice' can be properly found." I have added the
48 underlining in the copy that I have handed up.
49
50 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
51
52 MS. STEEL: We say that on the face of all the evidence heard
53 in court it cannot be said, by any stretch of the
54 imagination, that a desire to express an opinion on a
55 matter of public interest has played "no significant part"
56 in the motivation for any of the anti-McDonald's campaign
57 and/or distribution of any of the anti-McDonald's
58 leaflets.
59
60 I mean, this is about the campaign in general but obviously
