Day 285 - 23 Oct 96 - Page 17
1 time. People do, experience teaches you, either in error
2 or for the most bizarre reasons, make admissions against
3 their interest which are completely untrue.
4
5 MR. MORRIS: Yes, I think in a defamation case it is
6 particularly important because we are talking about the
7 suppression of freedom of speech and that if a
8 representative of a company is making an admission, then
9 they are putting that point of view to the public domain
10 anyway.
11
12 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Well, they may be, but I still have to
13 evaluate it. It may be easier to evaluate in most
14 circumstances, but I still have to decide what weight
15 I attach to it.
16
17 MR. MORRIS: Right. We have heard how Brazilian beef was
18 exported to Uruguay and Argentina, Dr. Gonzalez, day 68,
19 page 53, line 21, and day 69, page 27, line 33. And these
20 are just from Dr. Gonzalez' own knowledge. And our
21 finding about Brazilian beef exported to the UK was a
22 complete once in a lifetime chance that McDonald's
23 disclosed a scrap of paper in some other documents which
24 they then asked for back because it should not have been
25 disclosed, without which we would not have been allowed to
26 plead anything about Brazil in this case and, as we have
27 found out, in the interests of the public it is absolutely
28 essential that this case did investigate McDonald's
29 supplies in Brazil.
30
31 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Where does this take --
32
33 MR. MORRIS: Yes.
34
35 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Just listen a moment though. Where does it
36 take me? I can see that if there is some evidence of
37 export of beef from Costa Rica, Guatemala or Brazil to
38 another country, be it the US or anywhere else, if there
39 is some evidence of that then you can make all these
40 points in saying McDonald's so-called policy does not
41 gainsay that evidence, does not contradict that evidence
42 or detract from its weight, because you say it either does
43 not exist or, I think what you are really saying is it
44 only needs the drop of a hat for people to act in breach
45 of it. I understand that.
46
47 But the fact that there either is no policy or that people
48 habitually act in breach of it, cannot provide evidence
49 where there is no other of, in this case, export, can
50 it?
51
52 MR. MORRIS: Well, it seems to me that McDonald's -- obviously
53 the burden of proof in one respect is on us to prove the
54 positive case, although we have counterclaimed that we are
55 we argue, it is up to McDonald's --
56
57 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That may be a different factor and there may
58 be various different factors, but when we are on the claim
59 it is for you, let us say, in this instance to prove as
60 part of your global effect argument that beef was exported
