Jump to content

McLibel case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected fromMcLibel)
"McLibel" redirects here. For the film, seeMcLibel(film).

McLibel case
Full case nameMcDonald's Corp v Steel (No.4)
Decided19 June 1997
Case history
Prior actionsMcDonald's Corporation v Steel & Morris(Trial) and 3 procedural appeals (McDonald's Corp v SteelNo.1 – 3)
Subsequent actionSteel & Morris v United Kingdom
Court membership
Judges sittingPill LJ,May LJ,Keene J
Subsequent ECHR decision
CourtEuropean Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section)
Full case nameSteel & Morris v United Kingdom
Decided15 February 2005
Citationapplication no. 68416/01
Court membership
Judge sittingM. Pellonpää (President)
Keywords
Freedom of expression,libel,legal aid

McDonald's Corporation v Steel & Morris[1997] EWHC 366 (QB),known as "theMcLibel case",was an Englishlawsuitforlibelfiled byMcDonald's CorporationagainstenvironmentalactivistsHelen Steeland David Morris (often referred to as "The McLibel Two" ) over a factsheet critical of the company. Each of twohearingsin English courts found some of the leaflet's contested claims to be libellous and others to be true.

The original case lasted nearly ten years which, according to theBBC,made it the longest-running libel case in English history.[1]McDonald's announced it did not plan to collect the £40,000 it was awarded by the courts.[2]Following the decision, theEuropean Court of Human Rights(ECHR) ruled inSteel & Morris v United Kingdomthat the pair had been denied a fair trial, in breach of Article 6 of theEuropean Convention on Human Rights(right to a fair trial), and their conduct should have been protected by Article 10 of the Convention, which protects the right to freedom of expression. The court awarded a judgment of £57,000 against the UK government.[3]McDonald's itself was not involved in, or a party to, this action, as applications to the ECHR are independent cases filed against the relevantstate.

Franny ArmstrongandKen Loachmade a documentary film,McLibel,about the case.

History

[edit]

Background

[edit]
Main articles:London GreenpeaceandHelen Steel
"What's wrong with McDonald's: everything they don't want you to know", the cover of the leaflet at the centre of the libel case

Helen Steeland David Morris were twoenvironmentalactivists ofLondon Greenpeace,a small environmental campaigning group that existed between 1972 and 2001. In 1986 they distributed "a few hundred copies" of a six-page leaflet titled "What's wrong with McDonald's: everything they don't want you to know" inStrand, London.[4][5]The leaflet accused the company of paying low wages, cruelty to animals used in its products, damaging the environment, and other malpractices.[6]The group were not affiliated with the largerGreenpeace Internationalorganisation, which they declined to join as they saw it as too "centralised and mainstream".[7]

Libel charges

[edit]

In 1990, McDonald's broughtlibelproceedings against five London Greenpeace supporters, Paul Gravett, Andrew Clarke and Jonathan O'Farrell, as well as Steel and Morris, for distributing the sheet on the streets of London. This case followed past instances in which McDonald's threatened to sue more than fifty organisations for libel, includingChannel 4television and several major publications. In all such cases, the media outletssettledand apologised.[8]

UnderEnglish defamation lawat the time, the defendant had to show that each disparaging statement made was substantively true. This could be an expensive and time-consuming process. Gravett, Clarke and O'Farrell apologised as requested by McDonald's, but Steel and Morris chose to defend the case.[9]

The two were deniedlegal aid,as was policy for libel cases, despite having limited income.[10]Thus, they had to represent themselves, though they received significantpro bonoassistance, including fromKeir Starmer.Steel and Morris called 180 witnesses, seeking to prove their assertions aboutfood poisoning,unpaidovertime,misleading claims about how much McDonald'srecycled,and "corporate spies sent to infiltrate the ranks of London Greenpeace".[11]McDonald's spent several million pounds, while Steel and Morris spent £30,000; this disparity in funds meant Steel and Morris were not able to call all the witnesses they wanted, especially witnesses from South America who were intended to support their claims about McDonald's activities in that continent's rainforests.[12]

In its libel allegation, McDonald's asserted all claims in the pamphlet to be false.[13]They found it difficult to support this position despite the indirectness of some of the claims. The case eventually became amedia circus.McDonald's executives, including Ray Cesca, entered the witness box, enabling cross-examination by the defendants.[14]

In June 1995 McDonald's offered to settle the case (which "was coming up to its [tenth] anniversary in court"[15]) by donating a large sum of money to a charity chosen by the two. They further specified they would drop the case if Steel and Morris agreed to "stop criticising McDonald's".[15]Steel and Morris secretly recorded the meeting, in which McDonald's 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.[12]

Judgment

[edit]

High Court

[edit]

The case was adjudicated by Mr Justice Rodger Bell. On 19 June 1997, Bell delivered his more than 1,000-page judgment largely in favour of McDonald's, finding the claims that McDonald's was responsible for starvation and deforestation were false and libellous.[16]The ruling was summarized by a 45-page paper read in court.[17]Steel and Morris were found liable on several points, but the judge also found some of the points in the factsheet were true.[12]McDonald's considered this a legal victory, though it was tempered by the judge's endorsement of some of the allegations in the sheet. Specifically, Bell ruled that McDonald's endangered thehealthof their workers and customers by "misleading advertising", that they "exploit children", that they were "culpably responsible" in the infliction of unnecessarycruelty to animals,and they were "antipathetic"[18]tounionisationand paid their workers low wages.[19]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 against the decision.[20]

In 1998 a documentary film was made about the case, also titledMcLibel.This was updated in 2005 after the verdict of the final appeal.

In September 1998, the pair sued theMetropolitan Policefor disclosing confidential information to investigators hired by McDonald's and received £10,000 and an apology for the disclosure.[20]

Court of Appeal

[edit]

An appeal began on 12 January 1999, and lasted 23 court days, ending on 26 February.[21]The case was heard in Court 1 of the Court of Appeal in theRoyal Courts of Justice.The case was adjudicated byLord Justices PillandMayandMr Justice Keene.The defendants represented themselves in court, assisted by first year law student Kalvin P. Chapman (King's College London). McDonald's were represented by libel lawyerRichard Rampton,[22]and a junior barrister, Timothy Atkinson,[23]and Ms Pattie Brinley-Codd of Barlow, Lyde & Gilbert.[24]Steel and Morris filed a 63-point appeal. They had requested a time extension, but were denied. The verdict for the appeal was handed down on 31 March, in Court 1 at the Royal Courts of Justice.[25]

The judges ruled it was fair comment to say that McDonald's employees worldwide "do badly in terms of pay and conditions"[26]and true "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".

As a result of their further findings against the corporation, the three Lord Justices reduced Mr Justice Bell's award of £60,000 damages to McDonald's by £20,000. The court ruled against the argument by Steel and Morris that multinational corporations should no longer be able to sue for libel overpublic interestissues. Steel and Morris announced their intention to appeal over these and other points to theHouse of Lords,and then take theUK governmentto theEuropean Court of Human Rightsif necessary.

In response to the verdict,David Pannicksaid inThe Times:"The McLibel case has achieved what many lawyers thought impossible: to lower further the reputation of our law of defamation in the minds of all right thinking people."[27]

Steel and Morris appealed to theLaw Lords,arguing that their right to legal aid had been unjustly denied. When the Law Lords refused to accept the case, the pair formally retainedsolicitorMark Stephens[28]andbarristerKeir Starmerto file a case with theEuropean Court of Human Rights(ECHR), contesting the UK government's policy that legal aid was not available in libel cases, and setting out a highly detailed case for what they believed to be the oppressive and unfair nature of UK libel laws in general, and in their case in particular.[29]In September 2004, this action was heard by the ECHR. Lawyers for Steel and Morris argued that the lack of legal aid had breached the pair's right to freedom of expression and to a fair trial.

European Court of Human Rights

[edit]
An anti-McDonald's leafleting campaign in front of the McDonald's restaurant inLeicester Square,London, during theEuropean Social Forumseason, 16 October 2004

On 15 February 2005, the European Court of Human Rights ruled[30]that the original case had breached Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) of theEuropean Convention on Human Rightsand ordered that the UK government pay Steel and Morris £57,000 in compensation. In their ruling, the ECHR criticised the way in which UK laws had failed to protect the public right to criticise corporations whose business practices affect people's lives and the environment (which violates Article 10); they also ruled that the trial was biased because of the defendants' comparative lack of resources and what they believed were complex and oppressive UK libel laws.

In particular the Court held:

in a democratic society even small and informal campaign groups, such as London Greenpeace, must be able to carry on their activities effectively and that there exists a strong public interest in enabling such groups and individuals outside the mainstream to contribute to the public debate by disseminating information and ideas on matters of general public interest such as health and the environment.

— ECHR judgment, para. 89[30]

The safeguard afforded by Article 10 to journalists in relation to reporting on issues of general interest is subject to the proviso that they act in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism..., and the same principle must apply to others who engage in public debate.

— ECHR judgment, para. 90[30]

It is true that large public companies inevitably and knowingly lay themselves open to close scrutiny of their acts and, as in the case of the businessmen and women who manage them, the limits of acceptable criticism are wider in the case of such companies.

— ECHR judgment, para. 94[30]

In response to the European Court of Human Rights' 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.[31]

Post court developments

[edit]

In the course of theUK undercover policing relationships scandalit was revealed that one of the authors of the "McLibel leaflet" wasBob Lambert,an undercover police officer who infiltratedLondon Greenpeace.[5]John Dines, another undercover officer, was Helen Steel's partner for two years; she was unaware of his true identity and motives.[32]

TheDefamation Act 2013brought some changes to libel cases,[33]which were expected to make it harder for corporations to abuse libel law.[34]

The McLibel case also raised awareness about how defamation proceedings can harm the reputation of companies that raise them,[35]similarly to theStreisand effect.

McDonald's response

[edit]

TheMcLibelfilm quoted McDonald's as offering little comment on the European Court decision, other than to point out that it was the Government and not McDonald's who was the losing party and that "times have changed and so has McDonald's".

On a website aiming to state its view on issues raised about it, McDonald's stated that the case is in the past and the issues more so, and that both sides in it have moved on (although Morris and Steel did continue related litigation).[6][36]

Later events

[edit]

Chapter 5 ofPaul LewisandRob Evans' 2012 bookUndercover: The True Story of Britain's Secret Policeis titled "McSpies". In recounting the history of theSpecial Demonstration Squad(SDS) it recounts the involvement of undercover policemen Bob Lambert and John Dines in the activities which led up to the trial.The Guardianlater reported that Lambert had co-written the leaflet that was central to the libel trial.[5]Steel has stated that Dines became treasurer of London Greenpeace.[37]

Documents from the case showed that McDonald's private investigators had been receiving information from the Metropolitan Police. The Metropolitan Police were sued over this, which was settled out of court and with an apology and the Metropolitan Police undertaking not to share information from police computers with corporations.[38]

Media

[edit]
Main article:McLibel (film)

A feature-length documentary film,McLibel,was made about the case byFranny ArmstrongandKen Loachin 1997. An extended version was produced in 2005, with estimated viewing figures in excess of 25 million.[39]

The documentary features courtroom reconstructions of the trial. It also features interviews withEric Schlosser(author of the 2001 bookFast Food Nation),Morgan Spurlock(writer/director of the 2004 filmSuper Size Me),Keir Starmer(who provided free legal support to the McLibel defendants for many years) andHoward Lymanwho appeared onThe Oprah Winfrey Showabout Mad Cow disease.

In April 2022 the case was the subject for a programme in the BBC Radio 4 seriesThe Reunion.[37]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^"McLibel pair get police payout".BBC. 5 July 2000."'McLibel' pair in fresh court bid ".BBC. 7 September 2004."McLibel: Longest case in English history".BBC. 15 February 2005.
  2. ^"McDonald's lets McLibel case rest".AP. 19 July 1997. Archived fromthe originalon 6 October 2008.
  3. ^Press release issued by the Registrar. "Chamber Judgment Steel and Morris v. The United Kingdom"TheEuropean Court of Human Rights,15 February 2005. Received 1 September 2008.
  4. ^Vidal, John (16 February 2005)."20-year fight ends with libel law in the dock".The Guardian.
  5. ^abcLewis, Paul; Rob Evans (21 June 2013)."McLibel leaflet was co-written by undercover police officer Bob Lambert".The Guardian.Retrieved21 June2013.
  6. ^abOliver, Mark (15 February 2005)."McLibel – Mark Oliver examines the background to the longest civil or criminal case in British legal history".The Guardian.
  7. ^p. 388 ofNo Logo
  8. ^"Over the past 15 years, McDonald's has threatened legal action against more than 90 organisations in the U.K., including theBBC,Channel 4,theGuardian,The Sun,theScottish TUC,the New Leaf Shop, student newspapers, and a children's theatre group. EvenPrince Philipreceived a stiff letter. All of them backed down and many formally apologised in court. "from Franny Armstrong," Why Won't British TV Show a Film about McLibel? ", 19 June 1998,The Guardian;as quoted inNo Logo.
  9. ^Skau, S. (2013)."McLibel".followthethings Accessed 16 June 2014.
  10. ^"For 313 days in court – the longest trial in English history – an unemployed postal worker (Morris) and a community gardener (Steel) went to war with chief executives from the largest food empire in the world." p. 389 ofNo Logo
  11. ^p. 389 ofNo Logo.
  12. ^abcMcLibelfilm, 1998.
  13. ^"Statement of Claim".Mcspotlight.org.Retrieved13 November2008.
  14. ^Vidal, john (1997).McLibel: British Culture on Trial.The New Press. pp.11–20.ISBN9781565844117.
  15. ^abp. 387 ofNo Logo,1st ed.
  16. ^"The Court Service – Queens Bench Division – Judgment – McDonald's Corporation & McDonald's Restaurants Limited against Helen Marie Steel & David Morris".Hmcourts-service.gov.uk. Archived fromthe originalon 5 June 2008.Retrieved13 November2008.
  17. ^"On 19 June 1997, the judge finally handed down the verdict....It felt like an eternity to most of us sitting there, as Mr Justice Rodger Bell read out his forty-five-page ruling – a summary of the actual verdict, which was over a thousand pages long. Although the judge deemed most of the factsheet's claims too hyperbolic to be acceptable (he was particularly unconvinced by its direct linking of McDonald's to" hunger in the 'Third World' "), he deemed others to be based on pure fact." pp. 389–390 ofNo Logo.
  18. ^"SUMMARY OF THE JUDGEMENT / Employment practices".Archivedfrom the original on 24 August 2018.Retrieved26 May2013.
  19. ^"Judgement Day Verdict – Highlights".McSpotlight. 19 June 1997.Archivedfrom the original on 8 June 2019.Retrieved14 July2006.
  20. ^ab"McLibel pair get police payout".BBC News.5 July 2000.Retrieved12 May2007.
  21. ^"Press Release – McLibel Support Campaign; 6 January 1999".Mcspotlight.org.Retrieved13 November2008.
  22. ^"One Brick Court – Barristers".onebrickcourt.Archived fromthe originalon 20 December 2008.Retrieved15 February2008.
  23. ^"Curriculum Vitae – Timothy Atkinson".mcspotlight.org.
  24. ^"Curriculum Vitae – Patti Brinley-Codd".mcspotlight.org.
  25. ^"Press Release – McLibel Support Campaign; 25th March 1999".mcspotlight.org.
  26. ^[Appeal Judgment p247]
  27. ^The Times,24 April 1999.
  28. ^Gibb, Frances (16 February 2005)."McDonald's gets a taste of defeat as Europe backs the McLibel Two".The Times.London.Retrieved29 January2011.
  29. ^European Court of Human Rights Application
  30. ^abcd"HUDOC – European Court of Human Rights".hudoc.echr.coe.int.
  31. ^"Victory for McLibel 2 against UK Government".McSpotlight. 15 February 2005.Retrieved14 July2006.
  32. ^Paul Farrell and Rob Evans (9 March 2016)."Undercover UK police spy apologises after being tracked down by woman he deceived".The Guardian.
  33. ^"Defamation Act 2013: Libel Reform Campaign Briefing".niassembly.gov.uk.
  34. ^Byrne, Matt (7 May 2013)."Can new Act clean up libel law?".The Lawyer.
  35. ^"Defamation Act 2013".24 March 2014.
  36. ^Skau, S. (2013),"McLibel",followthethings.
  37. ^abThe Reunion – the McLibel Trial.The Reunion.BBC Radio 4. Event occurs at 30m20s.Retrieved18 April2023.My former partner at the time I got the writ was an undercover policemen, obviously I did not know that until many years later, He was infiltrating London Greenpeace, he became the treasurer of London Greenpeace, he was actively involved in the McLibel support campaign
  38. ^The Reunion – the McLibel Trial.The Reunion.BBC Radio 4. Event occurs at 31m03s.Retrieved18 April2023.Through the McLibel case documents showed that McDonald's private investigators had been meeting with the Metropolitan Police and getting information from them and we, after McLibel was over, we sued the Metropolitan Police for giving that information to McDonald's and they made an out of court settlement and an apology and undertook not to share information from police computers with corporations
  39. ^"29 Million Viewers for Banned McLibel Doc".Spanner Films.4 August 2004.Retrieved17 January2009.

References

[edit]
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McLibel_case&oldid=1242816207"