McLibel case The McLibel case is the colloquial term for McDonald's Restaurants v Morris & Steel, a long-running 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 to be a Strategic lawsuit against public participation, lasted seven years, making it the longest-running court action in English history. Although McDonald's had technically won two separate hearings of the case in the English courts, the partial nature of the victory and drawn-out litigation has turned the case into a matter of serious embarrassment for the company. Because of this, McDonald's has repeatedly announced that it has no plans to collect the £40,000 it was awarded by the courts. Since then, certain aspects of the trial have been declared by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to be in violation of the Convention on Human Rights and on 15 February 2005, the pair's 20-year battle (and 11-year court battle) with the company concluded when 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 the McLibel couple £57,000 in compensation. History 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"), 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, including that the corporation sells unhealthy food; exploits its work force; practices unethical marketing of its products, especially towards children; is cruel to animals; needlessly uses up resources; contributes to poverty in the Third World by forcing peasants either to leave their land in favour of export crops which could satisfy McDonald's needs, or to convert their land to raise cattle; creates pollution with its packaging; and is at least partly responsible for destroying the South American rain forests. Before McDonald's responded, the pamphlet was regarded as something of a failure. Now, though, the pamphlet has been translated into over twenty-six languages. 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. Although none of these individuals was alleged to be the author of the pamphlet, and the leaflets were distributed in a number of other countries, the group faced large financial penalties and a difficult court battle unless they retracted and apologised for its content and ceased its distribution. Under English law, the burden of proving (on balance of probability) the literal truth of each and every disparaging statement is on the defendant. For a number of years, McDonald's was thus perceived to have been able to use the English libel laws to prevent public criticism being made against them. During the 1980s, the company threatened to sue more than fifty organisations, including Channel 4 television and several major publications. Because of such precedents, and because of the considerable financial and legal resources McDonald's could bring to bear, three of the charged individuals (Gravett, Clarke and O'Farrell) felt that they had no choice but to apologise as demanded; McDonald's typically uses this libel tactic in the United Kingdom, and settles for a formal apology in court or an informal one. Steel and Morris, on the other hand, refused to back down and decided to fight the case. However, the two had no formal post-secondary school education, and few financial resources; Morris was an out-of-work postal employee from Tottenham and Steel a community gardener for Haringey Borough Council. Furthermore, they were denied Legal Aid by the courts on the basis that it was not policy for libel cases. Although the pair were deemed no legal match for McDonald's enormous legal assets, they represented themselves, receiving much free legal advice, and doing enormous amounts of research in their spare time; they would eventually call 180 witnesses to prove their assertions about food poisoning, unpaid overtime, misleading claims about how much McDonald's recycled, and even about how McDonald's hired "corporate spies sent to infiltrate the ranks of London Greenpeace". McDonald's spent millions of pounds, while the protesters had £30,000 raised from public donations. The lack of funds meant Morris and Steel were not able to call all the witnesses they wanted, especially witnesses from South America who would have testified in support of the claims about the destruction of the rainforest. A major mistake by McDonald's and their lawyers when preparing the case was asserting that all claims in the pamphlet were false. Although some of the claims were actually quite strong - the assertion that the destruction of the Amazonian rain forests was in part due to McDonald's demand for cattle (for burgers), for instance — other claims were less controversial. The corporation found itself on trial before the British people and the world, particularly with regard to those claims involving labour practices and the nutritional content of McDonald's food. The case became a media circus, especially when top McDonald's executives were forced to take the stand and be questioned by the two non-lawyers. In June 1995, McDonald's offered to settle the case (which "was coming up to its first anniversary in court") by donating a large sum of money to a charity chosen by the two; in addition, they would drop the case if Steel and Morris agreed to "stop criticising McDonald's". Steel and Morris secretly recorded the meeting, in which McDonald's executives 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. On 19 June 1997, Mr Justice Bell delivered a more than 1000-page decision largely in favour of McDonald's, summarised by a 45-page paper read in court. Steel and Morris had proven the truth of three fifths of the claims in the original leaflet but were found guilty of libel on several points. Although a legal victory for McDonald's, the case had long since been deemed a Pyrrhic victory for the company, as Bell's decision found that the defendants proved many of the points made in the London Greenpeace pamphlet. Thus, Bell noted that McDonald's did endanger the health of their workers and customers by "misleading advertising", that they "exploit children", that they are "culpably responsible" in the infliction of unnecessary cruelty to animals, and that they are "antipathetic" to unionisation and pay their workers low wages.[14] 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. Worse, evidence that surfaced during the trial regarding McDonald's business practices proved extremely embarrassing for the company. It has been estimated that the case has cost McDonald's £10,000,000. 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 Later, the defendants learned McDonald's had not only hired spies to infiltrate London Greenpeace, but that the company had hired agents to break into their offices and steal documents. 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. The Appeal began on 12th January 1999 and lasted 23 days in court, ending on 26th February. The case was heard in Court 1 of the Court of Appeal in the 1100 year old Royal Courts of Justice. The case was heard by Lord Justices Pill & May and Mr Justice Keane (as he then was, he is now Lord Justice Keane). The McLibel 2 represented themselves in court, assisted only by 1st year law student Kalvin P. Chapman (King's College London). McDonalds were represented by Libel law's most (in)famous QC, Richard Rampton, a junior barrister - Timothy Atkinson and a partner at the law firm representing McDonald - Ms Pattie Brinley-Codd of Barlow, Lyde & Gilbert [22]. Helen & Dave had a 63 point appeal (for breakdown or for the actual appeal). The preparation for the appeal had been long, arduous and painful for both Helen & Dave, and a request for further time was denied by the Court, despite medical evidence of exhaustion. The verdict for the McLibel Appeal was handed down at 11am, Wednesday 31st March, in Court 1 at the Royal Courts of Justice. There was a lively celebration picket by supporters outside the Court. In their verdict , Pill, May and Keane added to the damning findings of fact made by the original trial judge, Mr Justice Bell, against McDonald's core business practices. They ruled that: it was fair comment to say that McDonald's employees worldwide 'do badly in terms of pay and conditions' [Appeal Judgment p247], 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.' The Lord Justices went on to state 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.