Day 307 - 27 Nov 96 - Page 15
1 whether we distributed it personally or somebody else did,
2 the effect is the same, I can understand that argument,
3 although I would disagree with it. But the point is that
4 we are dealing with the meaning here, and the meaning to
5 the ordinary member of the public would be that we,
6 personally, were distributing the leaflet.
7
8 MR. MORRIS: Of course, what Mr. Rampton just said about
9 meaning also applies in the main claim, as well.
10
11 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Let Ms. Steel .....
12
13 MR. MORRIS: I wanted to make that point. I had not heard him
14 make that point before, regarding the meanings in the main
15 claim.
16
17 MS. STEEL: Going on to meaning (b): "The Defendants and each
18 of them distributed a leaflet called 'What's wrong with
19 McDonald's' (referred to in paragraph 3 of the Statement of
20 Claim) knowing the contents were untrue." Firstly, it is
21 clear that the subject of the press releases and the
22 leaflet is the 'What's wrong with McDonald's' fact sheet,
23 which we are being sued over, because the whole
24 subject-matter of the press releases and the fact sheet is
25 this libel trial. So, it has to be about the fact sheet,
26 not about other leaflets. Throughout those ....
27
28 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
29
30 MS. STEEL: I will leave that for now and come on to the
31 Plaintiffs' meaning.
32
33 The part of that meaning that we have pleaded about knowing
34 the contents were untrue, firstly, I mean, in general, the
35 use of the word "lies" indicates knowledge that the
36 contents are untrue. Again, we rely on Mr. Preston's
37 definition as well. The second point as to where the
38 knowledge that the contents were untrue comes from, the
39 fourth paragraph in the 'Libel Action Background Briefing',
40 which also appears in the other documents, that in December
41 1984 McDonald's solicitors wrote to the group expressing
42 concern about the leaflet stating that it was defamatory,
43 and so on. It is clear there that an ordinary member of
44 the public would think that we had been told that the
45 leaflet was untrue and, therefore, we knew it was untrue.
46
47 Also, from the fifth paragraph in the 'Libel Action
48 Background Briefing' which talks about the issue of --
49 well, it does not talk about the issue of writs, it says
50 about the letters that came with the writs. It says, "As a
51 result, three of the group did admit in court that the
52 leaflet was libelous. They apologised and undertook not to
53 repeat the lies". So, that is a third point where we,
54 according to this document, should know that the contents
55 of the fact sheet were untrue.
56
57 Now, McDonald's meaning (b) is that: "The Defendants have
58 published or caused to be published or been party to or
59 procured the distribution and publication of the leaflet
60 called 'What's wrong with McDonald's', and other material
