Day 057 - 29 Nov 94 - Page 17
1 my foot in it. The question of fair comment is, in the
2 first instance, an objective question which is this: Could
3 a fair minded person express, honestly express, that
4 opinion on the facts proved? That is on objective
5 question.
6
7 It has necessarily before the defence of fair comment can
8 succeed two other questions entailed with it. The first is
9 this: Has at the end of the case the Defendants succeeded
10 in proving such a sufficient substratum of fact that the
11 comment can objectively be regarded as fair? In other
12 words, a defamatory comment which has no sufficient factual
13 basis for it will fail the objective test, because it is
14 objectively unfair, because no fair minded person could
15 have made it on that factual basis. That is the first
16 hurdle which the Defendants have to climb in this case.
17
18 The second necessary question which is entailed which is a
19 hurdle that the Plaintiffs have to climb is this: Even if
20 it were an objective, fair comment in the sense that
21 somebody could have made it on the facts proved, did the
22 Defendants publish it on this or, as we would say, these
23 many occasions, from the proper motive or were they, on the
24 contrary, motivated by some ulterior purpose which the law
25 would regard as malice?
26
27 So, my Lord, to concede that the word "murder" might
28 honestly be used in relation to the slaughter of animals by
29 someone holding strong views on that topic, is to concede
30 nothing at all so far as the defence of fair comment is
31 concerned, save that the word has in context the character
32 of an expression of opinion.
33
34 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes, thank you.
35
36 MR. MORRIS: Is it possible to just come back with a couple of
37 points?
38
39 MS. STEEL: The point I was trying make is that what I do not
40 understand is Mr. Rampton is saying that he is applying to
41 make this amendment in order to clarify the issues in the
42 case. What he was saying then was that in actual fact the
43 meanings are not the issues in the case, so we are not
44 entitled to ask for more details of what he means by
45 "cause". That is what I do not understand. It is just a
46 total contradiction really.
47
48 If he should not have to explain "cause" because the
49 ordinary reader would not stop there and think: "Well,
50 what is meant by 'cause'?" why should we have to explain
51 "link" because why should the ordinary reader stop and
52 think: "Well, what is meant by 'link'?"
53
54 MR. MORRIS: To be candid, Mr. Rampton is already extending his
55 case as we speak now, because when he said: "The question
56 now is, how is diet causally linked to cancer", he then
57 said, "and, if so, in what sense?" So, because his
58 pleading is again more confusing than the original one,
59 I can confidently predict that Mr. Rampton, when it is
60 proven that diet is linked to a disease causally and maybe
