McLibel case

The McLibel case is the colloquial term for an English court action for libel filed by McDonald's Corporation against unemployed environmental activists Helen Steel and David Morris (often referred to as 'The McLibel Two'). The original case enjoys the distinction of being the longest-running court action in English history, lasting seven years.

Overview

Although McDonald's has technically won two separate hearings of the case in the UK 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 has instead offered to pay the defendants to drop their case. Since then, the trial has been declared by the European Court of Human Rights to be in violation of the Convention on Human Rights.

History

Beginning in 1986, London Greenpeace (a small environmental campaigning group that should not be confused with the larger Greenpeace International organisation), 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 responsible for destroying the South American rain forests [1] (http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/factsheet.html).

Original Case

In 1990, McDonald's responded by filing a libel suit 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 were alleged to be the actual authors 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. English libel law differs from similar laws in other jurisdictions in many ways. Under English law, the primary purpose of the legal system is to protect the reputation of the accuser. The burden of proving the literal truth of any potentially disparaging statements made therefore falls to 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, 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.

Perhaps McDonalds' greatest mistake in filing the case was to assert that all of the claims in the pamphlet were false. Although this was a safe accusation with respect to a number of the shakier claims — those involving the rain forests, for instance — some of the claims were much less controversial. The corporation suddenly found itself on trial before the British people and the world, particularly with regard to those claims involving the health 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 self-taught lawyers.

On June 19, 1997, Justice Roger Bell handed down an 800-page decision in favor of McDonald's. Although this was a technical 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 had proven 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 on animals, and that they are "antipathetic" to unionization and pay their workers low wages [2] (http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/trial/verdict/quotes.html). Furthermore, although the decision awarded £60,000 to the company, the award didn't come close to paying McDonald's legal costs, 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 McDonalds £10,000,000 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 had abused its connections with law enforcement to obtain information on the defendants. The pair later sued Scotland Yard, receiving £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 appeal and February 2005 outcome

Steel and Morris appealed to the House of Lords that their right to legal aid (to ensure a fair trial) had been denied. When that body refused to hear the case, the defendants appealed to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), to contest 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 ECHR. 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/February 15 2005, the pair's 20-year battle (and 11-year court battle) with the company was 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 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and ordered that the UK government should pay the McLibel Two £57,000 in compensation.

In making their decision, the ECHR 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 ECHR'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." [3] (http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/press/releases/msc150205.html)

McDonalds have so far refused to comment on the decision.

See also

• Strategic lawsuit against public participation

Further Reading and references

• McLibel, burger culture on trial by John Vidal (New Press, 1998) ISBN 0333694619 (hbk), ISBN 0330352377 (pbk), ISBN 1565844114 (US).

• McLibel:Two Worlds Collide, documentary produced by Spanner Films [4] (http://www.spannerfilms.net/?lid=161).

• McWorld on Trial, an extensive article on the case from the point of view of Dave Morris and Helen Steel appears in The Raven, issue 43 (published by Freedom Press) [5] (http://www.mcspotlight.org/campaigns/current/MCDIYFUL.html)

External links

• McSpotlight website (http://www.mcspotlight.org/)
• McLibel documentary (1997/2005). "The kind of film Michael Moore probably imagines he makes - The Sunday Times (http://www.spannerfilms.net/mclibel)
• 'McLibel Two win legal aid case', Guardian website, 15 February 2005 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/food/Story/0,2763,1415031,00.html)
• McLibel pair get police payout (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/820786.stm) on BBC News website 5 July 2000