UK: McLibel 2 denied a fair trial - ECHR (1)
01 January 2005
On 15 February 2005 the "McLibel two", David Morris and Helen Steel, won their case at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) when it found that the British government's failure to provide legal aid meant they did not receive a fair trial. In 1990 the pair were sued for libel by McDonald's for distributing leaflets that questioned the ethical nature of the company's operational practices. The result has been a 15-year legal case that included a 313-day trial, the longest in English legal history. Because libel cases are excluded from legal aid they received no financial assistance throughout this period. This left them ill-prepared and with no choice but to represent themselves in court. In contrast, McDonalds spent an estimated £10 million on legal fees.
In 2000, Morris and Steel brought this disparity to the attention of the ECHR arguing that the UK's libel laws breach both Article 6 (the right to a fair trial) and Article 10 (the right to freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. They claimed that in such cases of defamation the law was massively in favour of the rich over the poor who often could not afford to participate on a financial basis regardless of the validity of their claims. Moreover they argued UK libel law is heavily weighted against the defendant because they must prove the veracity of every word of the allegation. In 1997 this meant that despite endorsing their main claims that McDonald's paid low wages, were cruel to animals and exploited children through advertising campaigns, the judge ruled against the two because other parts of the leaflet were defamatory. He awarded £60,000 in damages (later reduced to £40,000 on appeal); a sum that Morris and Steel have refused to pay.
Largely in response to their case, the 1999 Access to Justice Act provided for the funding of defamation cases in "exceptional circumstances". The pair's lawyers claim that none has yet to be granted. The ECHR found that "denial of legal aid to the applicants had deprived them of the opportunity to present their case effectively before a court". Morris and Steel were awarded damages of 20,000 and 15,000 euros respectively. The government is obligated to comply with this finding and provide legal aid for a greater range of libel cases, but while the Department for Constitutional Affairs claims the government will be re-evaluating the libel laws, Lord Falconer, speaking recently in the House of Lords, made it clear to peers that "on the basis of the judgment in the case, we do not intend to extend legal aid generally to defamation cases", (see Statewatch Vol. 3 no. 3, Statewatch News Online August 2004).
J. Vidal "McLibel: Burger Culture on Trial" (The New Press, 1997); ECHR: http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2005/Feb/ChamberjudgmentSteel&MorrisvUnitedKingdom150205.htm: www.mcspotlight.org