Day 307 - 27 Nov 96 - Page 42
1 posed for the publication in question. Quite what that
2 would prove I do not know. Just because the media ask you
3 to have your photograph taken does not prove anything,
4 really. It just means that you have co-operated with a
5 request from them.
6
7 I am going to stop for a moment and hand over to
8 Mr. Morris, because I am just getting a bit disorganised.
9
10 MR. JUSTICE BELL: How are you going to do it? You are
11 dealing with the question of whether it was a privileged
12 occasion, are you?
13
14 MR. MORRIS: Amongst other things.
15
16 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Is Ms. Steel dealing with that? She has been
17 dealing with it so far.
18
19 MR. MORRIS: Yes. No, I am dealing with that and some other
20 matters.
21
22 MS. STEEL: It is just really to save time, because I am pretty
23 tired and I am getting a bit incoherent. So if Mr. Morris
24 speaks for a while, it will let me get my thoughts back
25 together.
26
27 MR. MORRIS: I have some general points, I think I will leave
28 them tomorrow, about the claim as a whole. I will just try
29 and deal with the subject of privileged self-defence now.
30
31 You characterised it in a sort of colloquial way as a
32 legitimate response to attack and we will embrace that
33 definition of privileged self-defence or qualified
34 self-defence. I think you can also add legitimate response
35 to an attack by myself and Helen, it has to be to be
36 relevant in this courtroom.
37
38 The question is: Is it legitimate? Is it a response? Was
39 there an attack and was it by us, if, indeed, it be an
40 attack? I think that this waiver of the normal laws of
41 libel which have been so heavily brought upon our heads in
42 this case is not one to be abused and waived lightly,
43 otherwise it becomes meaningless; or it becomes a defence
44 which anybody could bring up at any time with any kind of
45 half-baked excuse. If that is the law, then we would
46 certainly pray this in aid in our case, and we will be
47 arguing about some of the law to do with multi-national
48 corporations at a later point.
49
50 Anyway, I think there has to be a sense of perspective in
51 this counterclaim so it is not an academic argument. If we
52 actually look at what has actually happened with this
53 issuing of these leaflets and press releases, it is clear
54 that McDonald's have been playing fast and loose with this
55 law to try and justify what is clearly a libelous
56 unwarranted attack on our character on the eve of a major
57 public trial.
58
59 So, not in a particularly coherent order, but was this
60 issuing of leaflets by McDonald's and press releases a
