WikiPortallus: McLibel

The McDonald's Restaurants v Morris & Steel, colloquially the McLibel case, was a long-running^[1] English court action for libel filed by McDonald's Corporation against environmental activists Helen Steel and David Morris (often referred to as "The McLibel Two") over a pamphlet critical of the company. The original case, considered by many scholars^[2]^[3] to be a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), lasted seven years, making it the longest-running court action in English history.^[4]

Although McDonald's won two hearings of the case in English court, the partial nature of the victory, the David-vs-Goliath reputation of the case, and the drawn-out litigation embarrassed the company. McDonald's announced that it did not plan to collect the £40,000^[5] that it was awarded by the courts. Since then, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that the trial violated Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the Convention on Human Rights and awarded a judgment of £57,000 against the UK government.^[6] (McDonald's itself was not a defendant in this appeal.) On February 15, 2005, the pair's 20-year battle with McDonald's came to an end with this judgment.

History

Publication

Beginning in 1986, "London Greenpeace", a small environmental campaigning group (not to be confused with the larger Greenpeace International organisation, which they declined to join as they saw it being too "centralized and mainstream for their tastes"^[7]), distributed a pamphlet entitled What’s wrong with McDonald’s: Everything they don’t want you to know.

This publication made a number of allegations against McDonald's. The leading allegations were that McDonald's:

It was later noted that the reach of the campaign was tiny compared with the level of ensuing controversy.^[9]

Original case

In 1990, McDonald's responded by bringing libel proceedings against five London Greenpeace supporters, Paul Gravett, Andrew Clarke and Jonathan O'Farrell, as well as Steel and Morris, for distributing the pamphlet on the streets of London. The case was assigned to Judge Rodger Bell. This case followed past instances in which McDonald's threatened to sue more than fifty organizations for libel, including Channel 4 television and several major publications. All such cases were settled, with apologies for the alleged libel.^[10]

Under English law, the burden of proving (on balance of probability) the literal truth of every disparaging statement is on the defendant. This can be an expensive and time-consuming process. Three of the charged individuals (Gravett, Clarke and O'Farrell) chose to apologise as requested by McDonald's. Steel and Morris, however, chose to defend the case.

The two were denied Legal Aid, as was policy for libel cases, despite having very limited income.^[1] Thus, they chose to represent themselves, though they received significant pro bono assistance. Steel and Morris called 180 witnesses, seeking to prove their assertions about food poisoning, unpaid overtime, misleading claims about how much McDonald's recycled, and "corporate spies sent to infiltrate the ranks of London Greenpeace".^[11] McDonald's spent several millions pounds, while Steel and Morris spent £30,000. This disparity in funds meant Steel and Morris were not able to call all the witnesses they wanted, especially witnesses from South America, who were intended to support their rain forest claims. ^[12]

In its libel allegation, McDonald's asserted that all claims in the pamphlet were false.^{citation needed} They found it difficult to support this position despite the indirectness of some of the claims. The case eventually became a media circus. McDonald's executives were forced to take the stand and be questioned by the defendants.^{citation needed}

In June 1995, McDonald's offered to settle the case (which "was coming up to its first anniversary in court"^[13]) by donating a large sum of money to a charity chosen by the two. They further specified that they would drop the case if Steel and Morris agreed to "stop criticising McDonald's".^[13] Steel and Morris secretly recorded the meeting; McDonald's said the pair could criticise McDonald's privately to friends but must cease talking to the media or distributing leaflets. Steel and Morris wrote a letter in response saying they would agree to the terms if McDonald's ceased advertising its products and instead only recommended the restaurant privately to friends.^[12]

The case was adjudicated by Mr. Justice Bell; it was the first libel case he handled^[14]. On 19 June 1997, Justice Bell delivered a more than 1000-page decision largely in favour of McDonald's,^[15] summarised by a 45-page paper read in court. ^[16] Steel and Morris were found liable on several points, although the judge also found that some of the points in the pamphlet were true. ^[12]This was a legal victory for McDonald's. However, it was tempered by the judge had endorsed some of them points in the pamphlet. For instance, Bell ruled that McDonald's endangered the health of their workers and customers by "misleading advertising", that they "exploit[ed] children", that they were "culpably responsible" in the infliction of unnecessary cruelty to animals, and that they were "antipathetic" to unionisation and pay their workers low wages.^[17] Furthermore, although the decision awarded £60,000 to the company, McDonald's legal costs were much greater, and the defendants lacked the funds to pay it. Steel and Morris immediately appealed the decision.^[18]

In 1998, a documentary film was made about the case, also titled McLibel. This was updated in 2005 after the verdict of the final appeal.

Appeals and further cases

In September 1998, the pair sued Scotland Yard for disclosing confidential information to investigators hired by McDonalds and received £10,000 and an apology for the alleged disclosure.^[18]

An appeal began on 12th January 1999, and lasted 23 court days, ending on 26th February.^[19] The case was heard in Court 1 of the Court of Appeal in the 1100 year old Royal Courts of Justice. The case was adjudicated by Lord Justices Pill & May and Mr Justice Keane.

The defendants represented themselves in court, assisted by 1st year law student Kalvin P. Chapman (King's College London). McDonalds were represented by renowned libel lawyer Richard Rampton.^[20], a junior barrister, Timothy Atkinson,^[21], and Ms Pattie Brinley-Codd of Barlow, Lyde & Gilbert.^[22].

Steel and Morris filed a 63 point appeal They had requested a time extension, but were denied. The verdict for the appeal was handed down on 31st March, in Court 1 at the Royal Courts of Justice.^[23]. Supporters of the defendants celebrated outside the courthouse.^{citation needed}

The judges ruled that it was fair comment to say that McDonald's employees worldwide 'do badly in terms of pay and conditions'^[24] and true that 'if one eats enough McDonald's food, one's diet may well become high in fat etc., with the very real risk of heart disease.' They further stated that this last finding 'must have a serious effect on their trading reputation since it goes to the very business in which they are engaged. In our judgment, it must have a greater impact on the respondents' [McDonald's] reputation than any other of the charges that the trial judge had found to be true'.^[25]

The Appeal Court also stated that it had 'considerable sympathy' with the defendants' submissions that the leaflet meant 'that there is a respectable (not cranky) body of medical opinion which links a junk food diet with a risk of cancer and heart disease', that 'this link was accepted both in literature published by McDonald's themselves and by one or more of McDonald's own experts and in medical publications of high repute', and that therefore 'that should have been an end of this part of the case' [p169]. However they ruled against the defendants on the allegation that McDonald's food was a carcinogen.^[26]

As a result of their further findings against the Corporation, the three Lord Justices reduced Mr Justice Bell's award of £60,000 damages to McDonald's by £20,000.

The court ruled against the argument by Steel and Morris that multinational corporations should no longer be able to sue for libel over public interest issues; they believed 'that may be seen as an argument of some substance', but ultimately rejected it, on grounds that it was a matter for Parliament.^[27]. Steel and Morris announced their intention to appeal over these and other points to the House of Lords, and then take the UK Government to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary.

In response to the verdict, David Pannick QC said in The Times: "The McLibel case has achieved what many lawyers thought impossible: to lower further the reputation of our law in the minds of all right thinking people."^[28].

European Court of Human Rights

Steel and Morris appealed to the Law Lords, arguing that their right to legal aid had been unjustly denied. When the Law Lords refused to accept the case, the pair filed a case with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), contesting the UK government's policy that legal aid was not available in libel cases. In September 2004, this action was heard by the ECHR. Lawyers for Steel and Morris argued that the lack of legal aid had breached the pair's right to freedom of expression and to a fair trial.

On 15 February 2005, the ECHR ruled that the original case had breached Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights and ordered that the UK government pay Steel and Morris £57,000 in compensation. In their ruling, the ECHR criticised the way in which UK laws had failed to protect the public right to criticise corporations whose business practices affect people's lives and the environment (which violates Article 10); they also ruled that the trial was biased due to the defendants' comparative lack of resources and what they believed were complex and oppressive UK libel laws. In response to the ECHR's decision, Steel and Morris issued the following press release:

The 2005 film quoted McDonald's as offering little comment on the European Court decision other than to point out that it was the Government and not McDonalds who was the losing party and that "times have changed and so has McDonald's."^{citation needed} On a website aiming to state its view on issues raised about it, McDonald's stated that the case is in the past and the issues more so, and that both sides in it have moved on - although Morris and Steel did continue related litigation.^[30]

McLibel

Contents

History

Publication

Original case

Appeals and further cases

European Court of Human Rights

See also

References

Further reading

External links