Day 309 - 03 Dec 96 - Page 56


     
     1   MR. RAMPTON:  It could not do on the text.  The text really
     2        could have been printed into the Statement of Claim.  It is
     3        not really susceptible, sensibly susceptible, of
     4        reinterpretation.
     5
     6   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You may have answered my question from your
     7        point of view.  But next question was whether the general
     8        sting in 4B, "are guilty of the destruction of rainforest,
     9        thereby causing wanton damage to the environment", whether
    10        that can be justified by evidence of indirect
    11        responsibility for destruction of rainforest.
    12
    13   MR. RAMPTON:  I would say yes, it could get near to it.  One has
    14        to look at what the sting actually is.  It is not: "Oh, he
    15        has got a gang of people with Golden Arches on their donkey
    16        jackets, with chainsaws, cutting down trees, or spraying
    17        the trees with poisons" -- leaving the word "lethal" out of
    18        it for the moment.  The sting is that the scale of
    19        McDonald's operation is such that they are responsible --
    20        and I do not mind whether it is directly or indirectly for
    21        this purpose -- for the destruction of vast areas of
    22        rainforest.
    23
    24        Now, put it like this: if the words alleged (to borrow
    25        your Lordship's words from an earlier occasion) direct or
    26        active destruction, in the sense of having gangs of people
    27        with McDonald's donkey jackets, but the facts were that
    28        McDonald's agents, whether agents in the ordinary sense or
    29        agents in the strict legal sense, were in fact marching
    30        into the rainforests to hack them down to make way for beef
    31        ranches, and McDonald's knew about this and -----
    32
    33   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  If there was a farmer on the edge of the
    34        rainforest and McDonald's or its agents said: "We will make
    35        sure our suppliers buy cattle from you, provided you can
    36        provide 10,000 head a year", and they only had land to grow
    37        5,000, and it was obvious that they were going to chop down
    38        trees to provide grazing for another 5,000 head, and -----
    39
    40   MR. RAMPTON:  And that was going on on a large scale.
    41
    42   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It is just a question of fact and degree as
    43        to whether, at the end of the day, if there is any indirect
    44        responsibility at all, that can be said to mean that they
    45        are guilty of destruction of the rainforest.
    46
    47   MR. RAMPTON:  If it is -----
    48
    49   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Which is B.  If there is any indirect
    50        responsibility at all, if one can trace the chain back of 
    51        causative effect, back to the chopping down of trees, one 
    52        has then got to stand back and say:  well, that is what 
    53        happened; does that mean that the general sting in 4B in
    54        all good sense has been justified?
    55
    56   MR. RAMPTON:  Not if it happened once and it happened more or
    57        less accidentally, no; or even twice or three times; not
    58        conceivably.
    59
    60   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  The answer would be no, but one has to stand

Prev Next Index