Day 309 - 03 Dec 96 - Page 28


     
     1        hormones or pesticide residues, could this justify the food
     2        poisoning meaning?
     3
     4   MR. RAMPTON:  No, I cannot accept that it would, because they
     5        are different kinds of allegations, as I was trying to say
     6        a moment ago.  The allegation of the food retailer, and on
     7        a huge scale -- I mean, they are very big food retailers,
     8        McDonald's -- they sell products, chicken and beef
     9        products, which they know, for one reason or another, which
    10        are likely to be within their control and, for one reason
    11        or another, is likely to give the customers food poisoning,
    12        is a serious defamation of the company, to which a
    13        justification would have to, we would submit, show concrete
    14        evidence that something of that kind was true of
    15        McDonald's.
    16
    17        To say that beef and chicken sold by McDonald's has within
    18        it certain residues which may damage health, even if that
    19        were proved (which of course it is not, but that is a
    20        separate question) would not be a justification of the food
    21        poisoning allegation.  All that it might do, if it had been
    22        legitimately offered in this case by way of justification,
    23        is make a reduction in the damages to be awarded for the
    24        food poisoning allegation.
    25
    26   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  On the basis that, well, even though the
    27        defamatory sting here has not been justified, if you are
    28        selling food which does people no good whatsoever because
    29        of pesticide residues or immunities built up by
    30        antibiotics, and so on.
    31
    32   MR. RAMPTON:  The strength of your claim is pro tanto devalued,
    33        is really what it is.  It is a bit like -- and I hate
    34        analogies, because they are usually hopeless -- saying to
    35        somebody, well, he has been found guilty of GBH, when the
    36        truth was that he had been found guilty of offensive or
    37        insulting behaviour -- something like that.  It is a broad
    38        analogy.  He might get something knocked off the damages
    39        for insulting behaviour, particularly if it was of a
    40        threatening kind, but he would certainly -----
    41
    42   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  If he had not, but had been found guilty of a
    43        threat to kill, he might say, well ---
    44
    45   MR. RAMPTON:  That might be so.
    46
    47   MR. JUSTICE BELL: -- what compensation does he deserve anyway?
    48
    49   MR. RAMPTON:  Put the other way round.
    50 
    51   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.  If I could just go to page 4, there are 
    52        some figures at the bottom there on salmonellosis.  This is 
    53        in divider 1 of volume 2.
    54
    55   MR. RAMPTON:  I am sorry, the references have been missed.  That
    56        is my fault.  These came from the evidence of Dr. North.
    57        Virtually everything in this section is taken from Dr.
    58        North's two visits.  Those, I think, were his figures.
    59        There is also, so far as the conditions for proliferation
    60        are concerned, I think that was also the evidence of

Prev Next Index