Day 163 - 25 Sep 95 - Page 07

     
     1
     2   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What you are really saying is that here and
     3        now I can say that McDonald's have no case on nutrition.
     4        What I cannot see is how I could possibly answer that in
     5        your favour without deciding what the leaflet meant.
     6
     7   MR. MORRIS:  Our submission on the effect of Charleston is that
     8        the headlines or, in this case, satirical comment or
     9        cartoon cannot make defamatory what is not defamatory.  The
    10        actual meaning of the text, the body of the leaflet, the
    11        fact sheet complained of, does not need to be analysed for
    12        its exact meaning; what does it mean by "link", what does
    13        it not mean by "link", how is it linked, all this kind of
    14        stuff, because the equivalent statement has been circulated
    15        by the Plaintiffs and recognised to be so.  They said they
    16        would continue to circulate that kind of statement.
    17
    18        That is our kind of position, that it is not necessary to
    19        identify the exact meaning of the London Greenpeace fact
    20        sheet on this issue because, whatever the meaning is, the
         Plaintiffs have circulated the equivalent meaning.  Maybe
    22        they put this in a different context.
    23
    24   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You say whatever the meaning is they have
    25        circulated the equivalent, surely you have to tell me what
    26        the meaning is?
    27
    28   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.
    29
    30   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You have to argue what the meaning is.
    31        I have to decide what the meaning is, if you are to pursue
    32        this application at all, and then having decided what the
    33        meaning is I can decide whether it is defamatory and
    34        whether at this stage it is quite clear that it must be
    35        justified.  I mentioned some time ago, and I think
    36        Mr. Rampton was going to think about it then, whether, in
    37        fact, I had any power to decide what the meaning is along
    38        the road.
    39
    40        I know there have been cases where Order 33, I think it is,
         has been used to decide whether the words of a publication
    42        are capable of bearing a meaning complained of by the
    43        Plaintiff.  Let me try to put it another way to you:  If
    44        the leaflet is capable of meaning what McDonald's by their
    45        amendment have pleaded, can you say:  "Well, that is
    46        clearly justified on the evidence so far"?  I would
    47        respectfully suggest, no, you cannot.
    48
    49        Your argument in that area is that it does not mean what
    50        the Plaintiffs claim.  If it meant something like -- I will 
    51        say this just so that you can consider it and Mr. Rampton 
    52        can as well -- McDonald's food is unhealthy because eating 
    53        it may well make your diet high in fat, sugar and/or animal
    54        fat and salt (sodium) and low in fibre, vitamins and
    55        minerals, with the very real risk that you will suffer
    56        cancer of the breast or bowel or heart disease as a result,
    57        and that although McDonald's knew or ought to have known
    58        this, they do not make it clear and they falsely claim that
    59        their food is a useful and nutritious part of any diet,
    60        were that the meaning, taking the whole lot together, then