Day 002 - 29 Jun 94 - Page 03

              McDonald's brought this case expecting that we too would
     2        immediately cave in, apologise and, therefore, be
              silenced.  We did not and we will not, but they have
     3        continued with the case nevertheless.  As Mr. Rampton
              admitted yesterday, their aim in taking this case to its
     4        conclusion is to gain a legal seal of approval for their
              business practices.  This is a show trial against unwaged,
     5        unrepresented defendants.  McDonald's hope that because of
              our lack of resources and legal experience they will gain
     6        an easy victory and a detailed judgment in their favour
              which they can then use to say to all their critics that
     7        they have proven, to the satisfaction of the court, they
              are squeaky clean.
              Of course, the reality is that at the end of case they
     9        would have proved no such thing because under the libel
              laws it is up to the defendants to prove everything, and
    10        not proven is not the same as untrue.
    11        However, as a result of our counterclaim and McDonald's
              defence to that counterclaim, where they assert that the
    12        leaflet is lies virtually from start to finish, it is now
              up to them to prove their claim.
              So far, the plaintiffs have shown a marked reluctance to
    14        prove their claims by disclosing documents relevant to all
              the issues.  We have heard time and time again that we
    15        could not have documents because they were not going to
              provide ammunition for our case.  If McDonald's have
    16        nothing to hide, why are they not proud to show all these
              documents to us?  Since the counterclaim, as I have said
    17        before, the plaintiffs are now in any event under an
              obligation to disclose any documents in their possession
    18        relevant to the pleadings.  Since the pleadings, as
              I said, assert that the whole of the leaflet are untrue
    19        they should be serving a large number of documents they
              have previously refused to disclose -- the pleadings to
    20        the counterclaim, that is.
    21        Not only have they refused to disclose documents that we
              have asked for, they have gone so far as to blank out
    22        parts of those documents.  Here is an example.  You may
              remember 24 was referred to before.  It is a report on a
    23        meeting that McDonald's had on nutrition and advertising.
              It concerns an advertising campaign by McDonald's in the
    24        United States which attempted to extol the plaintiffs'
              food as nutritious.
              Three State attorney generals took action against the 
    26        plaintiffs over this advertising campaign.  They wrote to 
              McDonald's and told them to stop the use of the adverts or 
    27        to face legal action.
    28        I thought I had the document out.  The letter that I am
              going to refer to is in volume 6, section B, No. 7.
    29        I will read the first two paragraphs of the letter.
    30   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Let me just find it.  Section?

Prev Next Index