Day 304 - 22 Nov 96 - Page 10
1 Now, if that is the image that they want the public to
2 have, how then can the London Greenpeace fact sheet lower
3 people's opinion of the company in relation to this
4 issue? I mean, if people think that the company's
5 behaviour in relation to unions is something that would
6 lower their opinion of the company because of that, then
7 they are going to think that from the company's own
8 literature anyway, or the company's own recommended
9 literature.
10
11 I think it should be also borne in mind the comments that
12 the representatives of the Plaintiffs have made to the
13 media in relation to this. It is all designed to give a
14 picture that unions are not welcome at McDonald's, so they
15 can hardly turn round and complain when the London
16 Greenpeace fact sheet makes basically the same point, and
17 they should not be allowed to, they should not have been
18 allowed to sue over it in the first place, they certainly
19 should not be allowed to complain that the London
20 Greenpeace fact sheet is defamatory in that way on this
21 issue. I think that is it on employment now.
22
23 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Thank you. (Pause).
24
25 MS. STEEL: Moving on to publication, which is the opportunity
26 to examine whether the Plaintiffs have proven their case on
27 a very essential aspect i.e., whether or not they can show
28 either that we distributed the fact sheet complained of or
29 that we were responsible for its distribution, and we would
30 submit that all the evidence on this key issue can properly
31 be defined as either irrelevant, inadmissible,
32 inconclusive, insufficient or so conjectural as to be of no
33 probative value whatsoever.
34
35 We also submit that the evidence adduced by the Plaintiffs
36 pays mere lip service to the basic principles of law which
37 should be applied. We would say that it is an awareness of
38 these deficiencies in their case that has resulted in the
39 Plaintiffs' transparent attempt to disguise the failings by
40 inviting the court to find the issue of publication by
41 myself and Mr. Morris proved on the basis of joint
42 enterprise, and we would say that in the process of doing
43 that they would widen the ambit of libel beyond all
44 precedent.
45
46 Just in relation to that, I do not know which case this is
47 from, but Lord Esher said that any proposition the result
48 of which would be to show that the common law of England is
49 completely unreasonable and unjust cannot be part of the
50 common law of England. And we would say that that applies
51 to the argument that the Plaintiffs are trying to run in
52 respect of the joint enterprise, or responsibility for
53 other people's actions, the way that they have pleaded
54 their case, the way they have put their case.
55
56 In any event, even if the court were minded to permit such
57 an extension of basic principle, we would say that the
58 evidence which has been adduced to found such proposition
59 consists purely of conjecture and inference, and it is a
60 general smoke screen to confuse, basically trying to
