Day 002 - 29 Jun 94 - Page 20
1 who makes the allegation, which is contradicted by the
head of the organisation, is not a witness in the case.
2 As far as I know, he is not identifiable. It is not
evidence which can be heard in this court. It is evidence
3 of nothing except what the man says. Certainly at this
stage I would have the strongest objection to those
4 allegations, as it were, being bandied about in this court
in public before the press without any substantiation.
5
MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. On what basis do you say it is proper
6 to show it as part of the case? One of you take it first,
then I will hear the other.
7
MISS STEEL: I will just say a few things. It is, undoubtedly,
8 relevant to malice for one thing. It is also relevant to
the issue in the counterclaim -- in the plaintiffs'
9 defence to the counterclaim -- that we had no honest
belief in what was being published. The plaintiffs showed
10 a video yesterday and we did not object. The video shown
was completely hearsay evidence. It was only shown -----
11
MR. JUSTICE BELL: I do not know what I would have ruled on
12 that if I had been put to ruling on it. As it happened,
no doubt for perfectly good and sincere motives, you did
13 not object to it, so that was the end of it. It is not
for me, save in exceptional circumstances, to interfere
14 with my own initiative -----
15 MISS STEEL: I just wanted to say that was only shown in
relation to the plaintiffs' justification for bringing
16 this action, and that, therefore, we should be entitled to
show this video to justify our reasons for defending this
17 action and for bringing the counterclaim, and to justify
our honest belief that McDonald's were using rainforest
18 beef.
19 Mr. Rampton has said Channel 4 apologised, so he is not
happy for the video that has been withdrawn by the people
20 who published it in this country to be shown in this
court. But, in fact, the people who actually made the
21 film in Germany have not apologised and I do not think
McDonald's -----
22
MR. JUSTICE BELL: I am not sure how relevant your point is.
23
MISS STEEL: I was just answering the point you made.
24
MR. JUSTICE BELL: It relates to malice.
25
MISS STEEL: It relates to the malice and to the counterclaim
26 intention. We do intend to serve a Civil Evidence Act
notice on this. We also have a statement from the person
27 who made the film who was willing to give evidence to this
court to confirm the accuracy of the contents.
28
MR. MORRIS: One additional point, what the film showed was
29 that there were two companies. The one in the middle was
a separate company, Jeesa(?), who said that they did not
30 have any direct contact with McDonald's. But the chap who
spoke at the beginning and the end was the Sales Director
