It is important to remember that this is the opinion of only one person - it is down to the individual to 'Judge For Yourself' . McDonald's Corporation First Plaintiff and McDonald's Restaurants Limited Second Plaintiff VS Helen Marie Steel First Defendant and David Morris Second Defendant before The Hon. After advertising, the leaflet turns to the rearing and slaughter of animals. In my view the leaflet means that the Plaintiffs are culpably responsible for cruel practices in the rearing and slaughter of some of the animals which are used to produce their food.
Birds are animals.
The charge is clearly defamatory. It is expressed as statements of fact. My conclusions so far as justification of the defamatory message of this part of the leaflet complained of is concerned, are as follows. Laying hens which are used to produce eggs for the First and Second Plaintiffs spend their whole lives in battery cages without access to open air or sunlight and without freedom of movement. I do not find the lack of open air or sunshine to be cruel, but the severe restriction of movement is cruel and the First and Second Plaintiffs are culpably responsible for that cruel practice.