Day 312 - 11 Dec 96 - Page 20


     
     1        thought would be a three to four weeks trial, would have
     2        been a chilling of virtually all views critical of the
     3        Plaintiffs because of the wide scope and the basic nature
     4        of the criticisms that have been argued over in court,
     5        bearing in mind that the public will not necessarily read a
     6        detailed judgment, as the point has been made regarding
     7        damages as well, to get at the subtleties of the
     8        interpretation of the words complained of.  McDonald's will
     9        be saying, we are vindicated about our business practices,
    10        our environmental policies, et cetera, and the result would
    11        be a chilling of virtually all views critical of the
    12        Plaintiffs as the public will be afraid to speak up,
    13        rightly or wrongly, in case they were served with a writ -
    14        not in case they would lose a case, but the mere threat of
    15        receiving a writ has a chilling effect on freedom of
    16        speech.  This is clearly an abuse of the legal process.
    17
    18        So, to summarise, we say that the unprecedented nature and
    19        scope of the case should be recognised and cause alarm in
    20        terms of the public interest and that in specific ways the
    21        case is an abuse, or is unsafe, in its proceedings and, in
    22        any event, that all the things I have submitted just now,
    23        the above factors, those factors should be taken into
    24        account when evaluating the evidence, the legal arguments,
    25        where the public interest lies in this case, and the final
    26        judgments, including costs and damages.
    27
    28        You know, to some extent, if I can just say, we have all
    29        been trapped in this courtroom for a long time, and in this
    30        case, and I think what I am trying to say here is not that
    31        I am personally criticising Mr. Rampton, or personally
    32        criticising yourself as the judge, it is well beyond
    33        any...
    34
    35        You know, it is something that has happened that the laws,
    36        we would argue, have not been equipped to deal with such a
    37        case and the Plaintiffs obviously have taken advantage of
    38        their ability to use the laws for their advantage.  We are
    39        saying that the public interest must be protected in any
    40        event in the circumstances of this case, but also in
    41        general in the context of the way libel laws can and do get
    42        used as a form of censorship, and, you know, we believe
    43        that things are beginning to develop in the law which
    44        provides a framework where new precedents can be set, and
    45        this case is a very suitable case for looking into some of
    46        the fundamental aspects of defamation law and procedure to
    47        see if it is, in fact, protecting the public or is it in
    48        fact just protecting rich and powerful bodies who are quite
    49        capable of actually promoting and protecting their own
    50        image in any event.
    51
    52        I hope that none of this should be seen as a personal
    53        attack on yourself.
    54
    55        It is hard to separate your personal-----
    56
    57   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I am here purely in a professional capacity.
    58
    59   MS. STEEL:   Perhaps we should have the five minute break.
    60

Prev Next Index