Two activists found to have libelled the US fast food chain McDonald's after the longest court case in English legal history did not have a fair trial, the European Court of Human Rights ruled on Tuesday. Helen Steel and David Morris, whose 1984 pamphlet accused McDonald's of starving the Third World, destroying rainforests and selling unhealthy food, were also deprived of their freedom of expression by the 1997 ruling, it said.
The Strasbourg-based court ordered Britain to pay them a total of 35,000 euros ($45,400) and offer them a retrial. Britain has three months to appeal the decision.
In its ruling, the court said the denial of state legal aid to the defendants, a part-time barmaid and an unemployed single father, had skewed the case from the start.
"The denial of legal aid to the applicants had deprived them of the opportunity to present their case effectively before the court and contributed to an unacceptable inequality of arms with McDonald's," it wrote.
The ruling also argued there was "a strong public interest in enabling such groups and individuals outside the mainstream to contribute to the public debate".
The original decision had rejected the argument that activists enjoyed the same freedom of expression as journalists.
McDonald's office in Britain said it had no immediate comment. The original "McLibel" trial included 313 days of testimony, eight weeks of closing speeches and six months of deliberation. It was the longest in English legal history although there has been a longer trial under Scottish law.
The court heard testimony from 180 witnesses on topics ranging from food packaging and manufacturing to labour practices, the destruction of rain forests and health issues.
Although it found Steel and Morris had libelled McDonald's on some counts, it said their pamphlet was accurate when it said that the fast food group's advertising exploited children, that it promoted cruelty to some animals and paid low wages.
Morris and Steel, now 40 and 51 years old respectively, conducted their own defence after being denied state legal aid. They said they could not pay the damages because they had no money.
In Britain, the case has been the subject of a two-part television documentary, a 300-page book and countless newspaper and magazine articles. It has spawned support groups and its own Web site which features 19,000 pages of court testimony.
Steel and Morris have always denied they defamed McDonald's in the pamphlet entitled "What's Wrong With McDonald's", but never expected to spend nearly three years defending the case.
The 1984 pamphlet was produced by London Greenpeace, a little known group with no relation to Greenpeace International.
After receiving libel writs from McDonald's in 1989 three of the five London Greenpeace leaders apologised, but Steel and Morris refused.
Court proceedings began in June 1994 after 28 pre-trial hearings and ended late last year.
Comments
Comments are closed.