Day 205 - 17 Jan 96 - Page 12
1 treatment of animals, particularly chickens, to support
2 that, although they are not expressed as facts within the
3 leaflet itself.
4
5 Perhaps you would like to make a note for yourself. Let me
6 see if I have made a note of it. Just give me a moment to
7 look at my own notes.
8
9 At some stage I suggest you look at paragraph 11.12 on
10 page 54 of the little black book, Duncan and Neil. There
11 is a sentence there which reads as follows: "The law is at
12 a stage of development" -- and it may be in due course
13 argued that it has developed beyond what is there, but the
14 editors go on to say: "... if the plaintiff himself pleads
15 an inferential meaning to the effect that the words meant,
16 for example, that he was a dishonest man or unfit to be a
17 director" -- for which here read that the Plaintiffs were
18 indifferent to the welfare of animals being the inferential
19 meaning -- "the defendant will then be free to introduce
20 evidence of other incidents" -- incidents other than the
21 ones which are specifically set out in this leaflet, such
22 as cutting throats while unconscious -- "which are relevant
23 to prove the truth of the inferential meaning."
24
25 Rightly or wrongly, I had assumed that is why there has
26 been and could be no objection to you using evidence,
27 whether by cross-examination or calling it of your own
28 initiative about the treatment of animals, whether at the
29 rearing stage or the slaughter stage, which are not matters
30 which are portrayed in the leaflet but you say you are
31 entitled to adduce in evidence in support of your
32 contention that McDonald's are utterly indifferent to
33 animals. At the end of the day, I suppose -- and I am
34 merely saying this aloud so that you can grapple with it in
35 due course -- you are going to say, well, even if there are
36 matters in the leaflet which we have not managed to justify
37 statements of fact, there are so many other instances of
38 (you would say) cruel, inhumane treatment of animals, that
39 the utterly indifferent allegation is substantially
40 justified.
41
42 There is no harm in me saying it, because it is a matter
43 which I would welcome argument on both sides on in due
44 course. But that is -----
45
46 MR. MORRIS: I understand that.
47
48 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I am taking advantage of this matter being
49 raised to raise it so that you can look back at this
50 transcript in due course, if you wish, and bear it in mind
51 when you come to your comments at the end of the day.
52
53 MR. MORRIS: Yes. Our main concern was that, as Mr. Rampton is
54 wont to do, his strategy is to try to make our proof -- of
55 course, the burden of proof being on us in the main claim
56 and the burden of proof being on them in the
57 counterclaim -- in the main claim, make our burden of proof
58 as high as possible, preferably as absurd as possible, so
59 that it is hard for us to prove our case, but -----
60
