Day 307 - 27 Nov 96 - Page 51


     
     1        drafts, with executives of the company present at meetings,
     2        to produce what is effectively a scurrilous, vicious and
     3        untrue document against two members of the public who have
     4        absolutely no protection in that situation.
     5
     6        If that can be justified as privileged self-defence, then
     7        basically it is fair game for anybody to do it any time.
     8        They would have to show that everybody who got the leaflets
     9        or got the press release had a direct interest to have that
    10        specific communication, because they no doubt would have
    11        got a copy of the fact sheet from us at some previous
    12        recent time, so much so that they would have to be
    13        corrected by McDonald's literature.  And they chose to
    14        bring this case and therefore, as Ms. Steel said, they
    15        cannot complain that they there will be public or press
    16        interest.  In fact, public and press interest, we would
    17        say, is clearly protected -- in fact it is the press that
    18        has the privileged protection to report upon matters
    19        relating to a public court case, and the law protects the
    20        press in that matter.
    21
    22        We would say also political debate and public debate over a
    23        matter of public interest such as a trial such as this is
    24        necessarily protected and should not be inhibited or
    25        attacked, as we believe that the effect of the McDonald's
    26        press release is to do.  We believe that the effect of that
    27        press release to the press was to serve as a warning to the
    28        press that the allegations made by the Defendants would be
    29        lies and, therefore, if they were to cover them then they
    30        might leave themselves open to legal action.  In fact, any
    31        number of people of the media have told us that they are
    32        frightened to cover the issues in this case -----
    33
    34   MR. RAMPTON:   I thought Mr. Morris decided not to give
    35        evidence.
    36
    37   MR. MORRIS:   That is just a fact, I am saying here and now.
    38
    39   MR JUSTICE BELL:  You should have gone into the witness box and
    40        given evidence about it if that was to be part of your
    41        case.  It is not right to declare it as part of a speech.
    42
    43   MR. MORRIS:   Well, it is just a fact.  If McDonald's are going
    44        to -- this is another point.  So, yes; is the response
    45        legitimate?  We say it is not a response, there was no
    46        attack, there was are appropriate ways of McDonald's being
    47        able to put over their point of view.
    48
    49        Is the actual document a legitimate document?   We have to
    50        look at the character of what is put in it. 
    51 
    52   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Let us break it down a bit. 
    53
    54   MR. MORRIS:   There is the character.
    55
    56   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Just pause.  You say there was not an
    57        attack, and there was not a response.  If that was correct,
    58        that would be the end of the matter.  So if you are going
    59        on to say was it legitimate, assume just for the same of
    60        your next argument that there was an attack and this was a

Prev Next Index