McLibel case

Helen Steel and David Morris, the defendants in the McLibel case, at the launch of McSpotlight.org

The McLibel case is the colloquial term for McDonald's Restaurants v Morris & Steel, an 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 lasted seven years, making it the longest-running court action in English history.

Although McDonald's has 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, and offered to pay the defendants to drop the case. Since then, certain aspects of the trial have been declared by the European Court of Human Rights to be in violation of the Convention on Human Rights.

Pamphlet

File:Mclibel1.png

Cover of original London Greenpeace What's Wrong With McDonald's? pamphlet

Beginning in 1986, "London Greenpeace", a small environmental campaigning group (not to be confused with the larger Greenpeace International organization), 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 towards children, is cruel to animals, needlessly uses up resources and creates pollution with its packaging and is at least partly responsible for destroying the South American rain forests [1].

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.

Although none of these individuals was alleged to be the author of the pamphlet, they 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 the literal truth of any potentially disparaging statements is on the defendant. For a number of years, McDonald's were 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 organizations, including Channel 4 television and several major publications. Because of such precedents, and because of the financial resources behind McDonald's, Gravett, Clarke and O'Farrell felt that they had no practical alternative but to apologise as demanded. 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. Furthermore, they were denied legal aid by the courts. 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.

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 somewhat weak — those involving the rain forests, 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 the nutritional content of McDonald's' food and labour practices. 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.

On June 19, 1997, Mr Justice Bell handed down an 800-page decision in favor of McDonald's.[2] Although a legal victory for McDonald's, the case had long since been deemed a Pyrrhic victory for the company, as Bell J'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 [3]. 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 (€14,620,000) and it is often described as the biggest public relations disaster in history.

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 sleep with members and break into their offices. In addition, it was learned the company abused its connections with law enforcement to obtain information on the defendants. The pair later sued Scotland Yard, and received £10,000 and an apology.

The decision of the appeals court further supported allegations in the London Greenpeace leaflet that McDonald's mistreated their workers, and that McDonald's food was a cause of heart disease. As a result, the award was reduced to £40,000. By this time McDonald's had no intention of collecting the money, and had abandoned any plans to block distribution of the leaflet.

European Court of Human Rights

Steel and Morris appealed to the Law Lords that their right to legal aid (to ensure a fair trial) had been denied. When that body refused to hear the case, the pair filed a case with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), contesting the UK government's policy that legal aid was not available in civil trials. In September 2004, the human rights action was heard by the ECtHR. Lawyers for the McLibel Two argued that the original trial pitted a poor, powerless pair of individuals against the wealth and might of a great corporation and breached the pair's right to freedom of expression and to a fair trial.

On 15 February 2005, the pair's 20-year battle (and 11-year court battle) with the company concluded when the ECtHR 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 should pay the McLibel Two £57,000 in compensation. In making their decision, the ECtHR criticised the way in which UK laws had failed to protect the public's right to criticise corporations whose business practices affect people's lives and the environment (which violates Article 10) and criticised the biased nature of the trial due to the defendants' lack of legal aid, the complex and oppressive nature of the UK libel laws, and the imbalance in resources between the parties to the case (which violates Article 6). In response to the ECtHR's decision, Steel and Morris issued the following press release;

Having largely beaten McDonald's... we have now exposed the notoriously oppressive and unfair UK laws. As a result of the... ruling today, the government may be forced to amend or scrap some of the existing UK laws. We hope that this will result in greater public scrutiny and criticism of powerful organisations whose practices have a detrimental effect on society and the environment. The McLibel campaign has already proved that determined and widespread grass roots protests and defiance can undermine those who try to silence their critics, and also render oppressive laws unworkable. The continually growing opposition to McDonald's and all it stands for is a vindication of all the efforts of those around the world who have been exposing and challenging the corporation's business practices [4].

As of February 2006, McDonald's has not commented on the decision.

External links