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

Prev Next Index