Day 002 - 29 Jun 94 - Page 45


     
     1        national leaflet in April (which was then literally on the
              eve and the first week of trial), a national leaflet, to
     2        their customers again attacking London Greenpeace and the
              defendants, saying that the fact sheet was all lies.
     3
              At the end of May, in or around the end of May, another
     4        press statement was published; a detailed attack again on
              London Greenpeace and the defendants and, by implication,
     5        all the people that have made these kinds of criticisms as
              being malicious liars.  These leaflets were signed by Mike
     6        Love, the head of communications of McDonald's Restaurants
              Limited, who is the former aide to Margaret Thatcher who
     7        seems to be responsible individually -- not individually,
              but personally responsible for these vituperative
     8        leaflet.
 
     9        The defendants really had no option but to take out a
              counterclaim in order to put the McDonald's to proof.
    10        Because of the last minute nature of this and the fact
              that the plaintiffs were very hard pressed for time just
    11        before the trial started, and had to have an extra week to
              draft up a defence to our counterclaim, the defence to the
    12        counterclaim was only served last week, on Monday.
 
    13        The defence is that, yes, the leaflet is all lies, and the
              fact sheet -- sorry, the London Greenpeace material, and
    14        the defendants know it.  In any case, they claim qualified
              privilege.  Even if what they have said is defamatory,
    15        they have claimed qualified privilege on the ground that
              they have been under attack from the defendants and,
    16        therefore, they are entitled to attack back which is the
              whole area of law that obviously, no doubt, will be argued
    17        at some stage during this case.
 
    18        I will not comment on that particular thing but, in any
              case, as they claim it is true, justification, then they
    19        are now put to the burden of having to prove that the fact
              sheet is lies, line by line or whatever.  We served the
    20        request for further and better particulars.  We gave them
              the chance to apologise and make a statement in open court
    21        apologising to us and their critics, all their critics
              really by association, which they did not want to do.  So,
    22        we are waiting for their particulars.
 
    23        Up until now there is not one word of evidence about --
              sorry, obviously there is a great amount of dispute in the
    24        trial over the truth or falsity of the matters in
              dispute.  But there are areas of the leaflet and there are
    25        aspects of the defence case which, inevitably, are not
              going to be complete where all the burden has been up to 
    26        now on the defendants for three years, and that McDonald's 
              have not been under any obligation or burden to prove that 
    27        something is not true.
 
    28        This may sound to some people as being an academic debate
              over the words "true" and "untrue", but this is absolutely
    29        fundamental to our case.  It is fundamental to anybody who
              on the eve of trial is attacked, whose integrity is
    30        undermined, whose witnesses may, therefore, feel
              undermined.  They have a right to make a counterclaim and

Prev Next Index