Day 312 - 11 Dec 96 - Page 43


     
     1   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
     2
     3   MR. MORRIS:  We do make the point that the manner in which a
     4        substantial multi-national corporation produces and retails
     5        a basic commodity such as food is an area of debate wholly
     6        unsuited to the law of defamation, and especially in the
     7        light of -- we have made other points before -- their
     8        ability to defend themselves is unquestionable.
     9
    10        They could have adopted to sue for malicious falsehood, for
    11        example, if they had no right to sue for libel.  But we
    12        suggest that, for example, corporate reluctance to do that,
    13        or in this case why McDonald's would not necessarily do
    14        that, is because of the burden of proof.  First of all, you
    15        get legal aid, the Defendant would be entitled to legal
    16        aid, which can only be-----
    17
    18   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You have an entitlement to apply for legal
    19        aid.
    20
    21   MR. MORRIS:  Entitlement to apply for legal aid, which can only
    22        be a good thing, in the public interest, and also the
    23        Plaintiffs would have to prove special damage had been
    24        suffered.
    25
    26        I think that deals with most of that.  Just, finally, in
    27        the body of the NUM judgment is page 3.  Page 3 of the NUM
    28        judgment seemingly quite persuasively refers to the City of
    29        Chicago v Tribunal Company 1923, Supreme Court of Illinois,
    30        ironically enough where McDonald's is based, in a judgment
    31        removing the governmental powers to sue for libel, and that
    32        was adopted pretty much so it seems by I think that was the
    33        Derbyshire adopted case, adopted that point of view.  Then
    34        on page 4, line B, of the NUM judgment it refers to the
    35        New York Times Company v Sullivan 1964 in the US, saying
    36        that the proposition about the right to criticise
    37        government without fear of civil as well as criminal
    38        prosecution, those submissions were endorsed by the Supreme
    39        Court of the United States in 1964.  And then goes on to
    40        say...  I get confused, when it says -- is it Lord Keith
    41        that is being quoted or?
    42
    43   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It is all Lord Keith, it is he who remembered
    44        to the American cases and the South African case.
    45
    46   MR. MORRIS:  Yes, and he says at line B, "the public interest
    47        consideration which underlay them are no less valid in this
    48        country."
    49
    50        I wanted to just elaborate that last point about the
    51        McDonald's Corporation, does it have a reputation in the
    52        UK; what is its motive for being the First Plaintiff in
    53        this case?  And we would say that it has an improper
    54        motive, for the reasons I gave earlier about, you know, a
    55        short trial and unfair circumstances, etcetera, to parade
    56        around the world through their publicity department, and
    57        I wanted to refer to the Telnikov case.  I do not know if
    58        I did actually give this in one of the court documents.
    59
    60   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It is in volume 1 of Mr. Rampton's.

Prev Next Index