Day 177 - 26 Oct 95 - Page 48
1 Again, I do not believe that I need to read
2 Broomfield v. Greig at any length. Everybody has had
3 copies of it. It is quite clear. But I would draw
4 attention to one passage which may have been prophetic, in
5 the sense that perhaps since 1868 times have changed
6 somewhat, as the editor of Gatley seems to think they
7 have. On page 565, the last sentence of the judgment of
8 the Lord President, which begins a quarter of the way down
9 the page, the last sentence of that paragraph:
10
11 "Now if the pursuer" -- and for the Defendants'
12 benefit, I observe that the pursuer in Scotland
13 is the same as plaintiff -- "had been prepared
14 to say that these words were used as meaning
15 that the bread was calculated instantly to
16 destroy human life, that would have been an
17 allegation of a different kind from the others;
18 but it was conceded in argument that nothing
19 more was intended than to convey, by a strong
20 form of expression, the idea that the bread was
21 unwholesome."
22
23 My Lord, I really only produce those cases because
24 your Lordship asked for some copies of the South Hetton
25 point. I am bound to say that I would submit that, having
26 regard to those passages from Gatley which I asked
27 your Lordship to look at this morning, and one's own sense
28 of what is or is not defamatory of a trader, and the
29 caution sounded by Gatley in this respect, it is not very
30 difficult to see that in a leaflet of this kind an
31 allegation -- never mind the imputation which is made
32 against McDonald's honesty -- an allegation that the food
33 on which their whole business is founded is apt to create a
34 significant risk in its consumers of acquiring or getting
35 cancers and Parkinson's or, indeed, come to that, of
36 getting food poisoning, is defamatory in itself -- simply
37 because any ordinary reasonable reader, reading that, would
38 be bound to say to themselves: "These people (McDonald's)
39 are at the very least careless of the health of their
40 customers, reckless as to the consequences of selling this
41 food, and they are only doing it because they want to make
42 money, and they do not care what evil consequences that may
43 have for the people who eat it." That is partly based on
44 the words themselves but, more particularly, on the context
45 of the leaflet as a whole. I will come back to that very
46 briefly before I sit down.
47
48 I have included in this bundle Prager v. Times Newspapers
49 and Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand, not because
50 I intend to refer to them, but because in due course,
51 according to whatever judgment your Lordship gives on this
52 question, the question will arise: where does that leave
53 the evidence? That is a bit opaque.
54
55 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. Explain what you mean.
56
57 MR. RAMPTON: What I mean by that is this, that if your Lordship
58 should rule in favour of a meaning which the Defendants do
59 not attempt to justify, then no further evidence is
60 required on this topic; and it may be that much of the
