Day 001 - 28 Jun 94 - Page 26


     
     1        Since London Greenpeace is not a limited company and
              cannot be sued, they have had to sue five of us", I stress
     2        the first person plural, "as individuals.  If McDonald's
              think we will apologise to them, they are wrong.  We are
     3        going to fight them every inch of the way and are
              launching the McLibel Five Support Campaign to raise money
     4        and bring public attention to their crimes.
 
     5        It is going to be extremely costly to fight this action
              but we know from the past six years that we will have huge
     6        public support.  McDonald's are going to regret ever
              taking us to court.  McLibel Five Support Campaign can be
     7        reached care of London Greenpeace, 5 Caledonian Road,
              London N1", and the telephone number is given. "Please
     8        make cheques payable to McLibel Five Support Campaign". In
              large letters at the bottom of the page:  "No surrender!
     9        No apology!"
 
    10        My Lord, from those documents your Lordship may infer,
              first, that the shorter version of words complained of is
    11        really in its substance no different from the leaflet
              complained of, though it is shorter.  The second document
    12         -- the one I have just read -- is, your Lordship may
              think, a very destructive document so far as the
    13        defendants' case on publication in this case is
              concerned.
    14
              It is plainly, we would submit, a reaffirmation of the
    15        truth of the leaflet complained of.  It is a confirmation
              that that leaflet has been distributed all over the
    16        world.  It is really what one might call a boast about
              that in this leaflet, and it is, we would submit, in
    17        effect, an admission by the five defendants at that time,
              including Mr. Morris and Miss Steel, an admission not only
    18        that they are members of the London Greenpeace but that
              they are or were responsible for the leaflet complained
    19        of.
 
    20        My Lord, it is right in view, particularly, of some of the
              pretrial publicity which has taken place in this action,
    21        that I should say some words about the purpose of this
              action.  My Lord, in a normal way a plaintiff in a
    22        defamation action seeks damages to compensate him for the
              injury done by the libel to his reputation and feelings.
    23        He will often also seek an injunction to prevent
              repetition.
    24
              The plaintiffs' purposes in this action are somewhat
    25        different.  It is right it is most important that they
              seek an injunction to stop the defendants from repeating 
    26        these allegations, or any of them, ever again.  But, my 
              Lord, the plaintiffs are not concerned with damages.  If 
    27        this were a jury action, that might be a difficult
              proposition for me to advance, because the only way in
    28        which a jury (who cannot give a reasoned judgment) can
              indicate the plaintiffs' reputation is by the size of its
    29        award of damages.  This is not a jury action.
 
    30        In consequence, my Lord, as the Court of Appeal has
              observed in this case, both the plaintiffs and the

Prev Next Index