Day 309 - 03 Dec 96 - Page 28
1 hormones or pesticide residues, could this justify the food
2 poisoning meaning?
3
4 MR. RAMPTON: No, I cannot accept that it would, because they
5 are different kinds of allegations, as I was trying to say
6 a moment ago. The allegation of the food retailer, and on
7 a huge scale -- I mean, they are very big food retailers,
8 McDonald's -- they sell products, chicken and beef
9 products, which they know, for one reason or another, which
10 are likely to be within their control and, for one reason
11 or another, is likely to give the customers food poisoning,
12 is a serious defamation of the company, to which a
13 justification would have to, we would submit, show concrete
14 evidence that something of that kind was true of
15 McDonald's.
16
17 To say that beef and chicken sold by McDonald's has within
18 it certain residues which may damage health, even if that
19 were proved (which of course it is not, but that is a
20 separate question) would not be a justification of the food
21 poisoning allegation. All that it might do, if it had been
22 legitimately offered in this case by way of justification,
23 is make a reduction in the damages to be awarded for the
24 food poisoning allegation.
25
26 MR. JUSTICE BELL: On the basis that, well, even though the
27 defamatory sting here has not been justified, if you are
28 selling food which does people no good whatsoever because
29 of pesticide residues or immunities built up by
30 antibiotics, and so on.
31
32 MR. RAMPTON: The strength of your claim is pro tanto devalued,
33 is really what it is. It is a bit like -- and I hate
34 analogies, because they are usually hopeless -- saying to
35 somebody, well, he has been found guilty of GBH, when the
36 truth was that he had been found guilty of offensive or
37 insulting behaviour -- something like that. It is a broad
38 analogy. He might get something knocked off the damages
39 for insulting behaviour, particularly if it was of a
40 threatening kind, but he would certainly -----
41
42 MR. JUSTICE BELL: If he had not, but had been found guilty of a
43 threat to kill, he might say, well ---
44
45 MR. RAMPTON: That might be so.
46
47 MR. JUSTICE BELL: -- what compensation does he deserve anyway?
48
49 MR. RAMPTON: Put the other way round.
50
51 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. If I could just go to page 4, there are
52 some figures at the bottom there on salmonellosis. This is
53 in divider 1 of volume 2.
54
55 MR. RAMPTON: I am sorry, the references have been missed. That
56 is my fault. These came from the evidence of Dr. North.
57 Virtually everything in this section is taken from Dr.
58 North's two visits. Those, I think, were his figures.
59 There is also, so far as the conditions for proliferation
60 are concerned, I think that was also the evidence of
