Day 186 - 10 Nov 95 - Page 24
1 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Let us not -- it was my fault, bringing in
2 that distraction. But do you dispute that the leaflet
3 alleges conscious deception by McDonald's?
4
5 MS. STEEL: Well, to be honest, I would say that, in terms of
6 the nutrition guide, it does not actually say that they are
7 being deliberately deceptive, just that they are not
8 telling the whole story. But that does not necessarily
9 mean that they are deliberately not telling the whole
10 story; it may be that they are just ignorant of the whole
11 story. I mean -- I do not know. I just say, to some
12 extent I am not especially worried, because we do not know
13 the Plaintiffs were aware of the story.
14
15 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Obviously, deception (whether conscious or
16 just in fact) is part of the meaning of the leaflet; and,
17 in fact, it is your point that it is the main part, rather
18 than just how adverse the effect would be on you if you ate
19 their food, which you say runs behind the main point which
20 is what they have to hide, and deception. I understand all
21 that. I am not expressing it very clearly at the moment,
22 but I understand that point which you made.
23
24 MR. MORRIS: Can I respond to this, because I think this is part
25 of the legal key, if I am not mistaken, that the Plaintiffs
26 have to satisfy you in order to claim deception is
27 defamatory, or one of the things they have to satisfy you
28 is that there is an element of -- it is not just
29 criticising food products in however strong terms, but
30 there has to be some element of malpractice or adulteration
31 or ---
32
33 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No. At the moment, I do not -----
34
35 MR. MORRIS: -- fraud.
36
37 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No. If you are going on to say "or
38 carelessness", then I do accept that. You see, thinking
39 back now, when I put "falsely" in, it depends whether they
40 knew or merely ought to know, it might be said. But I put
41 "ought to know" in because that would make it defamatory
42 because they are really being negligent, if they know it
43 might be said that they are being fraudulent. But let us
44 not get bogged down -----
45
46 MR. MORRIS: I think that is very, very important.
47
48 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Why?
49
50 MR. MORRIS: Because I would say your meaning, as it stands, is
51 not defamatory, because it does not -- they have to show
52 that McDonald's are being deceptive about their specific
53 products or fraudulent about their specific products. It
54 cannot be that they talk about public policy issues but
55 they do not give the whole truth; therefore, that is
56 equivalent in law to adulteration or malpractice or fraud.
57
58 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I do not understand that. If a large
59 corporation pumped out advertising praising the quality of
60 its goods, when it knew or ought to know that that was
