Day 307 - 27 Nov 96 - Page 38
1 privileged it is necessary that the person to whom such a
2 statement is made as well as the person making it should
3 have an interest or duty in respect of the subject matter
4 of such statement. It is not sufficient that the maker of
5 the statement honestly and reasonably believed that the
6 person to whom it is made has such an interest or duty".
7
8 The particular part of this case which I think is worth
9 considering in relation to this is on page 59, and this is
10 Lord Esher, Master of the Rolls, and he is referring to the
11 -- well, I mean, obviously, you can read the case anyway,
12 but he is referring to the Board of Guardians, who are a
13 group of people to whom the defamatory material matter was
14 published, and he said that it had to be considered what
15 their position was in this, and he said, "They have no
16 interest in the matter, as it seems to me, and I have
17 already said they have no duty or power to take any action
18 upon the communication made to them. Under these
19 circumstances, I think it is clear that the occasion was
20 not privileged".
21
22 So, in relation to, in this case, the press releases and,
23 more particularly, the leaflets distributed to the public,
24 what power or duty does the public have to take any action
25 based upon the press release or the leaflets communicated
26 to them? If they did not have any power or duty to take
27 any action as a result of the communication from
28 McDonald's, then the occasion cannot be privileged. I
29 mean, we probably want to say more about the privilege law
30 because we have not really had a chance to look into it,
31 but that was just one that I noticed the other day so I
32 thought I would bring it up now.
33
34 I am trying to see if there is anything in the later
35 pleading that I need to go through.
36
37 MR. MORRIS: There seems to be some material at the bottom of
38 page 60 in that report that would be relevant. I mean, I
39 have not even looked at this authority, but it does seem to
40 touch on some of the relevant matters in this case.
41
42 MS. STEEL: Obviously, it is the case that it is for the
43 Plaintiffs to show that the occasion was one of -- well,
44 that it was a privileged occasion.
45
46 There are just a few points that I wanted to make in
47 relation to the further and better particulars of the
48 defence to counterclaim. Really, starting on page 9 --
49 well, I will not make those points, they are the same as
50 I made before; that there is no evidence to connect us to
51 those documents, and that in relation to those as well we
52 have not been given any particulars of when all those
53 documents, leaflets and press releases are alleged to have
54 been published, or we were alleged to have published
55 whatever was in them.
56
57 Then on page 10. At No 2 McDonald's say that the
58 Defendants have always been part of the Mclibel support
59 campaign. They have not actually brought any evidence of
60 this. I mean, I did say it before. The fact that, you
