UK Activists Hail Court Ruling in "McLibel" Case

Typography
Two Britons found to have libelled the U.S. fast food chain McDonald's after the longest court case in English legal history did not have a fair trial, the European Court of Human Rights ruled on Tuesday.

STRASBOURG, France — Two Britons found to have libelled the U.S. fast food chain McDonald's after the longest court case in English legal history did not have a fair trial, the European Court of Human Rights ruled on Tuesday.


Helen Steel and David Morris, whose 1984 pamphlet accused McDonald's (MCD.N) of starving the Third World, destroying rainforests and selling unhealthy food, were also deprived of free speech by the 1997 ruling, it said.


The Strasbourg-based court ordered Britain to pay the pair a total of 35,000 euros ($45,400) and offer them a retrial. Britain has three months to appeal the decision.


Morris, a single father, hailed the ruling as a "total victory" in comments to reporters outside a McDonald's restaurant in central London where activists began handing out the leaflets at the centre of the libel case 20 years ago.


"It is only the end of the legal battle. It is not the end of the battle for the public to be able to criticise powerful organisations in our society," said Steel.


McDonald's office in Britain had no immediate comment on the decision, saying it was not party to the case.


But it added: "It is important to note, although the so-called "McLibel' case came to court in 1994, the allegations related to practices in the "80s. The world has moved on since then and so has McDonald's."


"DAVID AND GOLIATH CASE," LAWYER SAYS


In its ruling, the court said the denial of state legal aid to the defendants had skewed the case from the start.


"The denial of legal aid to the applicants had deprived them of the opportunity to present their case effectively before the court and contributed to an unacceptable inequality of arms with McDonald's," it wrote.


The ruling also argued there was "a strong public interest in enabling such groups and individuals outside the mainstream to contribute to the public debate."


"This was a David and Goliath case," the pair's lawyer, Mark Stephens, told Reuters. "They have found that effectively, for want of a better word, the system abused Steel and Morris to such an extent that the ruling can't be found to be fair."


The original "McLibel" trial included 313 days of testimony, eight weeks of closing speeches and six months of deliberation.


The court heard testimony from 180 witnesses on topics ranging from food packaging and manufacturing to labour practices, the destruction of rain forests and health issues.


It found Steel and Morris, now aged 40 and 51 respectively, libelled McDonald's on some counts but that their pamphlet was accurate in saying the fast food group's advertising exploited children, promoted cruelty to some animals and paid low wages.


Morris and Steel, who deny they defamed McDonald's in the pamphlet entitled "What's Wrong With McDonald's," conducted their own defence. They said they could not pay the damages because they had no money.


Five other activists apologised after receiving libel writs from McDonald's in 1989. Court proceedings began in June 1994 after 28 pre-trial hearings and ended late last year.


Source: REUTERS