Day 307 - 27 Nov 96 - Page 53


     
     1
     2   MR. MORRIS:   Yes.  I mean, all the points about they had other
     3        means of being able to put over their points of view
     4        through their contacts with the media  -----
     5
     6   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Store those up for malice, which you have to
     7        deal with at some stage.
     8
     9   MR. MORRIS:   I probably will not have time and you probably
    10        will not remember everything I have said, but if you can
    11        assume that everything I have said up to now also relates
    12        to the malice as well, because to understand the motivation
    13        of McDonald's in this one has to understand the context in
    14        which it has taken place and the character of the material,
    15        the fact they had other methods of being able to get their
    16        point of view over, the fact that the trial was about to
    17        take place; all that kind of stuff; the fact that they were
    18        not under attack, also can go to malice; what was the
    19        motivation, then, for producing this document?   But is the
    20        document legitimate as a self-defence and, indeed, it goes
    21        to malice as well.
    22
    23        First of all, in self-defence, is the scale of the
    24        publication appropriate to what -- well, there is just no
    25        evidence at all of any attack by me and Helen, so it is
    26        hard to compare it.  But let us assume it is found that we
    27        did give out a copy of the fact sheet in 1989, or
    28        something, 1990.  Is the issuing of 300,000 leaflets and
    29        press releases to all the major press attacking our
    30        character and the fact sheet as lies an appropriate scale
    31        of response, if, indeed, it be a response?   We would say
    32        no.  It is an abuse of the privileged self-defence.  Even
    33        if they were to be able to invoke it, the scale of their
    34        self-defence is completely out of proportion.  Secondly,
    35        the character of the material, the attack -- well, the word
    36        "lies" I think is the important word, really; it was eight
    37        or nine times used in the press release.  There is
    38        absolutely no -- there is nothing in the material that says
    39        why it should be lies, nothing at all.  Therefore, it is
    40        completely -- it is character assassination without any
    41        back-up.
    42
    43        Of course, there are things about how McDonald's apparently
    44        wrote to the group, and all this kind of stuff, about the
    45        fact sheet which we all know is absolute rubbish anyway.
    46        But, apart from that, there is nothing to justify in it why
    47        me and Helen should not be believing what we are saying.
    48        It is a real attack on our character before we walk into
    49        court, saying, "We believe this" and we have been attacked
    50        outside of court for actually not believing what we are 
    51        saying.  We are just, presumably, making it all up because 
    52        we have nothing better to do. 
    53
    54   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Can I express that in another way?
    55
    56   MR. MORRIS:   Please do, yes.
    57
    58   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   All these things are attacks on character,
    59        otherwise you would not be in the situation of asking
    60        whether there is qualified privilege and malice, anyway,

Prev Next Index