McLibel Two win legal aid case
McLibel Two win legal aid case
http://www.guardian.co.uk/food/Story/0,2763,1415031,00.html
Mark Oliver and agencies
Tuesday February 15, 2005
Two campaigners known as the "McLibel Two" should have been given legal aid
by the British government to defend themselves against a libel action by the
food giant McDonald's, Europe's highest court ruled today.
The ruling by the European court of human rights is a huge victory for the
pair, David Morris and Helen Steel, and a pleasing end for them to the
15-year McLibel saga. It is being scrutinised by the government, which may
now be forced to change the libel laws. Campaign groups welcomed today's
verdict.
The McLibel Two lost a libel case against McDonald's in 1997, in which the
relatively penniless environmental activists famously represented themselves
against the firm's expensive lawyers. The firm had sued them for libel
because of leaflets the two Londoners had distributed, but not written,
entitled: "What's Wrong with McDonald's".
In the aftermath of that case, they brought a separate case to the European
court of human rights in Strasbourg against the UK government, arguing that
English libel law and the lack of legal aid for defendants of defamation
cases had forced them to represent themselves.
Today human rights judges upheld their argument, made at a hearing in
Strasbourg last year, that having to represent themselves denied them the
right to free speech and a fair hearing. The judges said the pair had not
been given a fair trial as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human
Rights, to which the UK is a signatory.
At the two-hour hearing in September, the pair's lawyer - for whom they did
have legal aid - said the 1994-97 David and Goliath struggle of the libel
case was "patently unfair" and there was a stark inequality between the two
sides.
The government had previously argued that the fact that the McLibel Two had
lost was not evidence they had been let down by the law. A spokeswoman for
the Department for Constitutional Affairs said today: "We are studying the
judgment very carefully."
The government has already amended the libel laws since it came to power in
1997. Changes introduced in the Access to Justice Act in 2000 mean people
may be eligible for legal aid in libel actions under "special measures".
In 1997 at the conclusion of the libel hearing, which at 313 days was the
longest court case in English legal history, the McLibel Two were ordered to
pay McDonald's £40,000 for handing out leaflets attacking the company's
commercial and employment practices.
The pair have never paid the damages. The case is thought to have cost the
fast food giant £10m and has been described as "the biggest corporate PR
disaster in history". The high court found the leaflet was true when it
accused McDonald's of paying low wages to its workers, being responsible for
cruelty to some of the animals used in its food products and exploiting
children in advertising campaigns.
After today's ruling the McLibel Two said in a statement: "Having largely
beaten McDonald's and won some damning judgments against them in our trial
we have now exposed the notoriously oppressive and unfair UK laws."
The statement said that following the ruling, "the government may be forced
to amend or scrap some of the existing UK laws."
It added: "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 protest and defiance can undermine those who try to silence
their critics, and also render oppressive laws unworkable."
The statement ended by noting there was "continually growing opposition for
McDonald's and all it stands for". This, the pair said was "a vindication of
all the efforts of those around the world who have been exposing and
challenging the corporation's business practice".
Earlier, speaking ahead of the outcome, Mr Morris told the BBC Radio 4 Today
programme that he still had concerns about McDonald's. He said: "I don't
think they can change because they are an institution that exists to make
profits and to increase their power.
" We can see the effects of not just what McDonald's is doing but what all
multinationals are doing to our planet. We believe there's an alternative
where people and communities have control over decision-making and
resources."
McDonalds has not been commenting on the case in Strasbourg, saying it was a
matter for the government as it was not directly involved.
Roger Smith, the director of the human rights and law reform group Justice,
said: "This is a wonderful victory for the sheer perseverance of two
litigants who have just stuck to the task and insisted upon justice. "I
think it's also a victory for human rights and a recognition of legal aid as
a basic human right which should be available in all types of cases where it
is absolutely necessary."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/food/Story/0,2763,1415031,00.html
Mark Oliver and agencies
Tuesday February 15, 2005
Two campaigners known as the "McLibel Two" should have been given legal aid
by the British government to defend themselves against a libel action by the
food giant McDonald's, Europe's highest court ruled today.
The ruling by the European court of human rights is a huge victory for the
pair, David Morris and Helen Steel, and a pleasing end for them to the
15-year McLibel saga. It is being scrutinised by the government, which may
now be forced to change the libel laws. Campaign groups welcomed today's
verdict.
The McLibel Two lost a libel case against McDonald's in 1997, in which the
relatively penniless environmental activists famously represented themselves
against the firm's expensive lawyers. The firm had sued them for libel
because of leaflets the two Londoners had distributed, but not written,
entitled: "What's Wrong with McDonald's".
In the aftermath of that case, they brought a separate case to the European
court of human rights in Strasbourg against the UK government, arguing that
English libel law and the lack of legal aid for defendants of defamation
cases had forced them to represent themselves.
Today human rights judges upheld their argument, made at a hearing in
Strasbourg last year, that having to represent themselves denied them the
right to free speech and a fair hearing. The judges said the pair had not
been given a fair trial as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human
Rights, to which the UK is a signatory.
At the two-hour hearing in September, the pair's lawyer - for whom they did
have legal aid - said the 1994-97 David and Goliath struggle of the libel
case was "patently unfair" and there was a stark inequality between the two
sides.
The government had previously argued that the fact that the McLibel Two had
lost was not evidence they had been let down by the law. A spokeswoman for
the Department for Constitutional Affairs said today: "We are studying the
judgment very carefully."
The government has already amended the libel laws since it came to power in
1997. Changes introduced in the Access to Justice Act in 2000 mean people
may be eligible for legal aid in libel actions under "special measures".
In 1997 at the conclusion of the libel hearing, which at 313 days was the
longest court case in English legal history, the McLibel Two were ordered to
pay McDonald's £40,000 for handing out leaflets attacking the company's
commercial and employment practices.
The pair have never paid the damages. The case is thought to have cost the
fast food giant £10m and has been described as "the biggest corporate PR
disaster in history". The high court found the leaflet was true when it
accused McDonald's of paying low wages to its workers, being responsible for
cruelty to some of the animals used in its food products and exploiting
children in advertising campaigns.
After today's ruling the McLibel Two said in a statement: "Having largely
beaten McDonald's and won some damning judgments against them in our trial
we have now exposed the notoriously oppressive and unfair UK laws."
The statement said that following the ruling, "the government may be forced
to amend or scrap some of the existing UK laws."
It added: "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 protest and defiance can undermine those who try to silence
their critics, and also render oppressive laws unworkable."
The statement ended by noting there was "continually growing opposition for
McDonald's and all it stands for". This, the pair said was "a vindication of
all the efforts of those around the world who have been exposing and
challenging the corporation's business practice".
Earlier, speaking ahead of the outcome, Mr Morris told the BBC Radio 4 Today
programme that he still had concerns about McDonald's. He said: "I don't
think they can change because they are an institution that exists to make
profits and to increase their power.
" We can see the effects of not just what McDonald's is doing but what all
multinationals are doing to our planet. We believe there's an alternative
where people and communities have control over decision-making and
resources."
McDonalds has not been commenting on the case in Strasbourg, saying it was a
matter for the government as it was not directly involved.
Roger Smith, the director of the human rights and law reform group Justice,
said: "This is a wonderful victory for the sheer perseverance of two
litigants who have just stuck to the task and insisted upon justice. "I
think it's also a victory for human rights and a recognition of legal aid as
a basic human right which should be available in all types of cases where it
is absolutely necessary."
posted by Dan at 17:15
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home