Day 307 - 27 Nov 96 - Page 12
1 MS. STEEL: Right. Also it is worth bearing in mind, whether
2 or not it was done, it is clearly the intention of
3 McDonald's for that to happen. They clearly wanted the
4 media to pick up on these press releases and to report
5 them, because there is absolutely no point in issuing a
6 press release unless you want somebody to report what is
7 said in that press release. So, I would say that is
8 something that you can automatically infer from the fact
9 that press releases were sent out, that that is what
10 McDonald's wanted to happen. They wanted newspapers and
11 journalists and the media to report on what they had said
12 in these press releases.
13
14 MR. MORRIS: I think the other side of the coin of their intent
15 was to specifically damage the credibility of the
16 Defendants on the eve of a public trial, an extremely high
17 profile public trial.
18
19 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Come to it all in order, because that,
20 probably, most directly related to any question of express
21 malice. I would not interrupt Ms. Steel.
22
23 MR. MORRIS: I am just trying to make the point that the
24 newspaper reporting, for example, of this case is not only
25 effective in terms of it may include information from the
26 press releases but it may also exclude material or
27 information coming out of this trial that would otherwise
28 have been included, as the press has a right and a duty to
29 report, because they have been inhibited from the
30 viciousness of the press release and the false information
31 put into those press releases. All I am saying is that if
32 we point to press reports and coverage, it is not just the
33 positive content of that that has clearly been influenced;
34 it is also the lack of content in those press releases that
35 are significant.
36
37 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I have made my point that I have to have some
38 evidence of that. Yes?
39
40 MS. STEEL: Sorry. (Pause).
41
42 MR. JUSTICE BELL: You were on a point which I think you
43 probably do not need to trouble about, that whatever was in
44 the three publications which was defamatory of anyone was
45 defamatory of you and Mr. Morris.
46
47 MS. STEEL: Yes, right. Going on to the first meaning that we
48 have pleaded that the words meant, "The Defendants and each
49 of them have intentionally made numerous false statements
50 about McDonald's" (this is meaning (a)), it is from all of
51 -- from each of these documents you get that, is the
52 overall effect of the documents, that there is a liberal
53 sprinkling of the word "lies" throughout both the press
54 releases and in the leaflet distributed to customers as
55 well. For example, in the Libel Action Background Briefing
56 there are twelve separate occasions when either the word
57 "lies" is used or something to that effect, such as "They
58 are not telling the truth", "contrary to their claims" and
59 that we have been advised that it was defamatory, and so
60 on. In fact, there is only one that I counted about
