McDonald's Restaurants v Morris & Steel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.(February 2008)
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.
Helen Steel and David Morris, the defendants in the McLibel case, at the launch of McSpotlight.org
Helen Steel and David Morris, the defendants in the McLibel case, at the launch of McSpotlight.org

The McDonald's Restaurants v Morris & Steel, colloquially the McLibel case, was a long-running[1] 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[who?] to be a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), 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[citation needed] 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 couple £57,000 in compensation.

Contents

[edit] History

[edit] Publication

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"[2]), 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.[3]

Before McDonald's responded, the pamphlet was regarded as something of a failure.[4] Now, though, the pamphlet has been translated into over twenty-six languages.[citation needed]

[edit] 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. This case followed past instances in which McDonald's threatened to sue more than fifty organisations for libel, including Channel 4 television and several major publications. All such cases were settled, with apologies for the alleged libel.[5]

Under English law, the burden of proving (on balance of probability) the literal truth of every disparaging statement is on the defendant. This can be an expensive and time-consuming process. Three of the charged individuals (Gravett, Clarke and O'Farrell) chose to apologise as requested by McDonald's. Steel and Morris, however, chose to defend the case.

The two were denied Legal Aid, as was policy for libel cases, despite having very limited income.[1] Thus, they chose to represent themselves, though they received significant pro bono assistance. Steel and Morris called 180 witnesses, seeking to prove their assertions about food poisoning, unpaid overtime, misleading claims about how much McDonald's recycled, and "corporate spies sent to infiltrate the ranks of London Greenpeace".[6] McDonald's spent several millions 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 rain forest claims. [7]

In its libel allegation, McDonald's asserted that all claims in the pamphlet were false.[citation needed] They found it difficult to support this position despite the indirectness of some of the claims. The case eventually became a media circus. McDonald's executives were forced to take the stand and be questioned by the defendants.[citation needed]

In June 1995, McDonald's offered to settle the case (which "was coming up to its first anniversary in court"[8]) by donating a large sum of money to a charity chosen by the two. They further specified that they would drop the case if Steel and Morris agreed to "stop criticising McDonald's".[8] Steel and Morris secretly recorded the meeting; 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.[9]

The case was adjudicated by Mr. Justice Bell; it was the first libel case he handled.[10] On 19 June 1997, Justice Bell delivered a more than 1000-page decision largely in favour of McDonald's,[1] summarised by a 45-page paper read in court. [11] 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. [12]This was a legal victory for McDonald's. However, it was tempered by the judge's finding that the defendants proved some of the points made in the London Greenpeace pamphlet. For instance, Bell ruled that McDonald's endangered the health of their workers and customers by "misleading advertising", that they "exploit[ed] children", that they were "culpably responsible" in the infliction of unnecessary cruelty to animals, and that they were "antipathetic" to unionisation and pay their workers low wages.[13] 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.[14]

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.

[edit] Appeals and further cases

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.[14]

An appeal began on 12th January 1999, and lasted 23 court days, ending on 26th February.[15] The case was heard in Court 1 of the Court of Appeal in the 1100 year old Royal Courts of Justice. The case was adjudicated by Lord Justices Pill & May and Mr Justice Keane.

The defendants represented themselves in court, assisted by 1st year law student Kalvin P. Chapman (King's College London). McDonalds were represented by renowned libel lawyer Richard Rampton.[16], a junior barrister, Timothy Atkinson,[17], and Ms Pattie Brinley-Codd of Barlow, Lyde & Gilbert.[18].

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 31st March, in Court 1 at the Royal Courts of Justice.[19]. Supporters of the defendants celebrated outside the courthouse.[citation needed]

Lord Justices Pill, May and Keane ruled that it was fair comment to say that McDonald's employees worldwide 'do badly in terms of pay and conditions'[20] 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 further stated 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. In our judgment, it must have a greater impact on the respondents' [McDonald's] reputation than any other of the charges that the trial judge had found to be true'.[21]

The Appeal Court also stated that it had 'considerable sympathy' with the defendants' submissions that the leaflet meant 'that there is a respectable (not cranky) body of medical opinion which links a junk food diet with a risk of cancer and heart disease', that 'this link was accepted both in literature published by McDonald's themselves and by one or more of McDonald's own experts and in medical publications of high repute', and that therefore 'that should have been an end of this part of the case' [p169]. However they ruled against the defendants on the allegation that McDonald's food was a carcinogen.[22]

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.[citation needed]

The court ruled against the argument by Steel and Morris that multinational corporations should no longer be able to sue for libel over public interest issues; they believed 'that may be seen as an argument of some substance', but ultimately rejected it, on grounds that it was a matter for Parliament.[23]. Steel and Morris announced their intention to appeal over these and other points to the House of Lords, and then take the UK Government to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary.[citation needed]

In response to the verdict, David Pannick QC said in The Times: "The McLibel case has achieved what many lawyers thought impossible: to lower further the reputation of our law in the minds of all right thinking people."[24].

[edit] European Court of Human Rights

Steel and Morris appealed to the Law Lords, arguing that their right to legal aid had been unjustly denied. When the Law Lords refused to accept the case, the pair filed a case with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), contesting the UK government's policy that legal aid was not available in libel cases. 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.

On 15 February 2005, 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 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 due to the defendants' comparative lack of resources and what they believed were complex and oppressive UK libel laws. 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. [25]

The 2005 film quoted McDonald's as offering little comment on the European Court decision other than to point out that it was the Government and not McDonalds who was the losing party and that "times have changed and so has McDonald's."[citation needed]

[edit] See also

  • McDonald's legal cases
  • Strategic lawsuit against public participation
  • Maxime, McDuff & McDo - a 2002 Quebec documentary film about the unionising of a McDonald's in Montreal. They were successful, but McDonald's quickly shut down the franchise after the union won.
  • Gunns 20 - Gunns Limited v Marr & Ors[11], a current Australian case, filed by Gunns (a major forestry company with main office in Tasmania) in the Supreme Court of Victoria, against 20 individuals and organisations for over 12.2 million dollars.

[edit] References

  1. ^ a b "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." pg 389 of No Logo
  2. ^ pg 388 of No Logo
  3. ^ What's wrong with McDonald's?. McSpotlight.
  4. ^ "London Greenpeace's campaign was winding down, and only a few hundred copies of the contentious leaflet had ever been distributed." pg 391 of No Logo
  5. ^ "Over the past 15 years, McDonald's has threatened legal action against more than 90 organisations in the U.K., including the BBC, Channel 4, the Guardian, The Sun, the Scottish TUC, the New Leaf Shop, student newspapers, and a children's theatre group. Even Prince Philip received a stiff letter. All of them backed down and many formally apologised in court." from "Why Won't British TV Show a Film about McLibel?", Franny Armstrong, 19 June 1998, The Guardian; as quoted in No Logo.
  6. ^ pg 389 of No Logo
  7. ^ McLibel film, 1998
  8. ^ a b pg 387 of No Logo, 1st ed.
  9. ^ McLibel film, 1998
  10. ^ Bell J had never tried, or acted as a barrister in, a libel case. His area of law had been primarily professional negligence, and so it has been felt by many that he was "led" by Richard Rampton QC, for McDonalds, throughout most of the case.
  11. ^ "On June 19, 1997, the judge finally handed down the verdict....It felt like an eternity to most of us sitting there, as Judge 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 pamphlet'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." pg 389-390 of No Logo.
  12. ^ McLibel film, 1998
  13. ^ Judgement Day Verdict - Highlights. McSpotlight (1997-06-19). Retrieved on 2006-07-14.
  14. ^ a b BBC News. "McLibel pair get police payout". Retrieved on 2007-05-12.
  15. ^ Press Release - McLibel Support Campaign; 6th January 1999
  16. ^ http://www.onebrickcourt.com/barristers.asp?id=20 - who a few months later was seen demolishing the holocaust denier David Irvine in his ill-fated libel case
  17. ^ Curriculum Vitae - Timothy Atkinson
  18. ^ Curriculum Vitae - Patti Brinley-Codd
  19. ^ Press Release - McLibel Support Campaign; 25th March 1999
  20. ^ [Appeal Judgment p247]
  21. ^ [Judgment p264]
  22. ^ [p170-2]
  23. ^ [p287]
  24. ^ The Times, 24.04.1999
  25. ^ Victory for McLibel 2 against UK Government. McSpotlight (2005-02-15). Retrieved on 2006-07-14.

[edit] Further reading

  • "McLibel in London", 20 March 1995, Fortune.
  • "Anti-McDonald's Activists Take Message Online", 27 March 1996, Associated Press.
  • "Activists Win Partial Victory in Appeal Over McDonald's Libel Case", 31 March 1999, Associated Press.
  • "Guess Who's Still in Trouble?" Newsletter #9, October 1997, Campaign for Labor Rights.
  • "Few Nuggets and Very Small Fries", pg 22; 20 June 1997, The Guardian.

[edit] External links

 The external links in this article may not follow Wikipedia's content policies or guidelines.
Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links.