Day 002 - 29 Jun 94 - Page 17

     
     1        The libel laws:  In the papers, mostly the libel cases
              that get publicity are things such as Michael Jackson's
     2        nose.  But the real use of libel laws is the daily
              continuous censorship imposed upon the press, the media,
     3        book publishers, for everything they produce, to be
              terrified that they may get writs.  I am sure the press
     4        here today will be aware that the lawyers are looking over
              their shoulder whenever they write items.  It does not
     5        have to be this way.  This court has the opportunity in
              this case to look at the truth and the fair comment in the
     6        material that is being published, bearing in mind the
              implications of freedom of speech.
     7
              The burden of proof has been on the defendants for the
     8        last three and a half years and now it is also on
              McDonald's Corporation.  That must mean time and effort
     9        must be set aside for making sure that McDonald's comply
              with their obligations under their choice of defending our
    10        counterclaim, which I will look at in a bit more detail.
 
         It must be recognised by this court that the phenomenal
              expense in conducting this case, and that the obligations
    12        of the parties cannot be treated in the same way.  For
              example, when the McDonald's Corporation kindly suggested
    13        yesterday that I could not have transcripts when they
              became available, although I could collect them from the
    14        offices of Barlow Lyde and Gilbert at my leisure in the
              evening, as if I can just jump on a bus and leave my child
    15        at home because I had nothing else to do.
 
    16        We have been denied Legal Aid, as always under the libel
              laws, and we made an application to Europe to try to
    17        challenge the rights of libel defendants to have access to
              Legal Aid, which is pretty essential, or to suggest that
    18        the British libel laws should be changed so that they are
              more accessible or accessible in any way to members of the
    19        public in defending themselves.
 
    20        That application was lost in Europe on the grounds that
              "we put in a tenacious defence and therefore could not
         claim that we were being denied access to libel
              justice."   A more ridiculous catch 22 situation I have
    22        never been in.  If we had given up the ghost, we might
              have won in Europe.
    23
              We have no jury which we think is seriously going to
    24        affect, not only the approach to the evidence and the
              judgment on the evidence, but also in the conduct of the
    25        trial.  It is going to be extremely difficult for us to
              maintain our concentration when all the public and the 
    26        press have long given up in this long trial.  So we hope 
              the court bears that in mind.  Because it does sharpen you 
    27        up when you are actually speaking to members of the public
              in trying to explain and put your case in the best
    28        possible way.
 
    29        I am just still talking about the unfairness of the
              situation as we see it.  I will just say something about
    30        the pretrial history, then I will move on to discovery.
              There have been over 28 pretrial hearings.  Many of them