The McLibel Trial Story From http://www.mcspotlight.org Handing out leaflets on the streets was one of the main activities of the small activist group London Greenpeace, who'd been campaigning on a variety of environmental and social justice issues since the early 1970's. (The group predates the more well known Greenpeace International and the two organisations are unconnected). In 1978 local postman Dave Morris worked alongside London Greenpeace activists in protests against nuclear power. By 1982 he had started attending the group's meetings. London Greenpeace campaigned on a wide range of issues from nuclear power and Third World Debt to anti-traffic actions and the Miners Strike. In the mid 1980's the group began a campaign focusing on McDonald's as a high profile organisation symbolising everything they considered wrong with the prevailing corporate mentality. In 1985 they launched the International Day of Action Against McDonald's, which has been held on October 16th ever since. In 1986 they produced a 6-sided factsheet called 'What's Wrong With McDonald's? - Everything they don't want you to know'. The leaflet attacked almost all aspects of the corporation's business, accusing them of exploiting children with advertising, promoting an unhealthy diet, exploiting their staff and being responsible for environmental damage and ill treatment of animals. But the group also continued with other campaigns, and in 1987, 21-year old gardener Helen Steel went along to meetings to get involved with protests in support of Aboriginal land rights at the time of the re-enactment of the First Fleet sailing to Australia. Meanwhile, McDonald's were busily suing (or threatening to sue) almost everyone who criticised them - from the BBC and The Guardian to student unions and green groups. They appeared to ignore the London Greenpeace campaign, and instead threatened a food cooperative called 'Veggies' in Nottingham, who were distributing the same leaflet. McDonald's then made an agreement with Veggies, accepting the circulation of the leaflet with some minor amendments to a couple of sections only. The company didn't even complain about the majority of the leaflet. Veggies continued distributing the leaflets in bulk. In 1989, as the campaign grew and was taken up by more and more groups around the world, McDonald's produced their own 'McFact cards' detailing their position on many of the accusations made in the leaflet. They also decided to take extreme action against London Greenpeace. McDonald's hired two firms of private investigators and instructed them to infiltrate the group in order to find out how they operated, who did what and, most importantly, who was responsible for the production and distribution of the leaflet. Since London Greenpeace was an unincorporated association, if McDonald's wanted to bring legal action to stop the campaign it would have to be against named individuals - which meant the company needed to find out people's names and addresses. Seven spies in total infiltrated the group. They followed people home, took letters sent to the group, got fully involved in the activities (including giving out anti-McDonald's leaflets) and invented spurious reasons to find out people's addresses. One spy (Michelle Hooker) even had a 6-month love affair with one of the activists. Another, Allan Claire broke into the office of London Greenpeace and took a series of photographs. At some London Greenpeace meetings there were as many spies as campaigners present and, as McDonald's didn't tell each agency about the other, the spies were busily spying on each other (the court later heard how Allan Claire, had noted the behaviour of Brian Bishop, another spy, as 'suspicious'). Not all the spies were unaffected by the experience: Fran Tiller 'felt very uncomfortable' doing the job and 'disliked the deception, prying on people and interfering with their lives'. She later gave evidence for the defendants in the trial, stating 'I didn't think there was anything wrong with what the group was doing' and 'I believe people are entitled to their views'. In 1990 McDonald's served libel writs on 5 volunteers in the group over the 'What's Wrong With McDonald's?' leaflet. They offered a stark choice: retract the allegations made in the leaflet and apologise, or go to court. There is no Legal Aid (public money) for libel cases, but the five did get two hours free legal advice. Which boiled down to: the legal procedures in libel are extremely complex and weighted against defendants, you'll incur huge costs, with no money or legal experience you'll have no chance against McDonald's legal team, you probably won't even get past the legal obstacles before the full trial. In short: back out and apologise while you've got the chance. One of the barristers that they met at this time, Keir Starmer, said that if they decide to fight he will back them up for free. Three of the five took the advice and reluctantly apologised. Which left Steel and Morris. Dave's partner and his very young son had had a bad accident and he was nursing them single-handed (he and his partner later split up and Dave became a full-time single father). He said he would go along with whatever Helen decided. "It just really stuck in the throat to apologise to McDonald's. I thought it was them that should have been apologising to us - well not us specifically, but to society for the damage they do to society and the environment" - Helen Steel. Unlike anyone McDonald's had ever sued for libel before, Helen and Dave decided that they would stand up to the burger giants in court. They knew each other well from their involvement in community based campaigns in their local North London neighbourhood and felt that although the odds were stacked against them, people would rally round to ensure that McDonald's wouldn't succeed in silencing their critics. Long before you get to trial, there are an enormous number of preliminary hearings and procedures that have to be completed. First, Helen and Dave had to prepare their Defence - a detailed response to McDonald's Statement of Claim. Then there are several rounds of 'Further and Better Particulars of Justification and Fair Comment' to complete. Meanwhile, the McLibel Support Campaign was set up to generate solidarity and financial support for Helen and Dave. Over the next few years they would raise more than £35,000 to pay for witness airfares, court costs, expenses and so on - every penny coming from donations from the public. Helen and Dave would only claim some travel and administration expenses (photocopying, phone calls to witnesses etc) - they were determined that they would never take a penny for themselves. In 1991 the defendants took the British government to the European Court of Human Rights to demand the right to legal aid or the simplification of libel procedures. Paradoxically, the court ruled that, as the defendants had put up a "tenacious defence", they could not say they were being denied access to justice. They lost the application. Meanwhile, back in the UK High Court, legal battles were raging between the two sides over McDonald's refusal to disclose all the relevant documents in its possession. McDonald's barrister argued that the defence case was very weak, that Helen and Dave would not be able to produce evidence to support it, so large parts of it should be dismissed and therefore there was no need for McDonald's to hand over the documents. The Judge overturned normal procedures (whereby documents are disclosed before exchange of witness statements) and ruled that the defendants had three weeks to produce witness statements. To everyone's surprise, Helen and Dave came back with sixty five statements. McDonald's then took the unusual step of bringing in a top lawyer at this pre-trial stage: employing Richard Rampton QC, one of Britain's top libel lawyers for a reputed fee of £2000 a day plus a 6- figure briefing fee. Their legal team now comprised Rampton, his junior barrister, solicitor Patti Brinley-Codd, at least five solicitors and assistants from leading city law firm Barlow, Lyde and Gilbert and even someone to carry Rampton's files. Helen and Dave were representing themselves, with occasional back-up from Keir Starmer. At this time Mr Justice Bell, who untimately presided over the full McLibel trial, took over the pre-trial hearings. Undaunted by events in court, on 16th October 1993 the McLibel Support Campaign organised a National March Against McDonald's. About 500 protesters marched through Central London in support of the right to criticise multinationals and to demonstrate their anger at McDonald's activities both in and out of court. Pickets also took place outside many of McDonald's stores around the country. In late 1993 Richard Rampton started to prove why he is paid so much money. He applied for the trial to be heard by a judge only, arguing that the scientific evidence necessary to examine the links between diet and disease are too complicated for the ordinary people of a jury to understand. This was despite the obvious fact that the defendants themselves are ordinary people with no scientific training. The judge ruled in favour of McDonald's saying that it would be too complex for lay people to adjudicate some of the issues, and it could be tried more 'conveniently' without a jury. The trial would now be heard by a single judge: a major blow to the defendants as it is very likely that a jury would be more sympathetic.