Activists shake UK law with 'McLibel Two' case victory

Vindicated in the longest court battle in British legal history, David Morris and Helen Steel celebrated their victory with a protest outside their nemesis's famous golden arches.

For 15 years, the North London activists fought a case against McDonald's where it was ruled the firm had been libelled by a group they belonged to, which distributed a pamphlet that said it increased Third World starvation, destroyed rainforests and sold unhealthy food.

Yesterday, the Court of Human Rights struck a blow for the little person and ruled that the "McLibel Two" did not get a fair trial because they were denied access to legal aid.

Though it is technically possible under recent UK law for defendants in libel cases to receive aid, Morris's lawyers say none have so far done so.

The Government must now comply with the findings and ensure that a wider category of defendants are eligible for state-funded legal advice in libel trials.

The determination of two, obstinate activists has shaken a multinational, stirred a debate about food and health and prompted a review of British libel law.

Because of this case, the rich and powerful may no longer be able to go to court safe in the knowledge that everything is stacked in their favour.

The case is also the tale of how McDonald's committed one of the biggest own goals in the annals of corporate public relations.

It began with the pamphlet "What's Wrong with McDonald's" in the 1980s.

Neither Morris, now 50, nor Steel, now 40, wrote the six-page flyer but both were members of London Greenpeace (not related to the environmental group, Greenpeace), who produced it.

When they served a series of libel writs against activists, McDonald's had little reason to suspect the scale of their error. Three of the accused apologised to escape legal action and even Morris and Steel, who fought on, believed they were destined to lose. Morris said: "We were told we did not have a cat in hell's chance because the laws were so stacked in favour of the rich and powerful.

"But we decided we had to fight because McDonald's were creating a climate of fear."

Confronted by the massive resources of a multinational and with no legal aid, they were outgunned. With only occasional sessions of free advice from a barrister sympathetic to activists, Keir Starmer, they were forced back on their own resources.

Morris would stay up to 4am preparing the next day's case while Steel would get up early instead at around 5am. The two defendants would co-ordinate their case on the way to court.

The trial, which came to court in 1994, included 313 days of testimony, eight weeks of closing speeches and six months of deliberation.

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.

Starmer said yesterday that the defendants "were extremely courageous. Most people would have backed down and everyone else, in fact, did".

Looking back, Morris concedes that there were times when he considered giving it all up. "During the court case it was such a nightmare because everything was stacked against us", he said.

But the very scale of the challenge spurred them on.

In the end the judge endorsed the leaflet's claim that McDonald's paid low wages to its workers, was responsible for cruelty to some of the animals used in its food products and exploited children through advertising campaigns.

The case also revealed a series of other embarrassments, including the fact that McDonald's had paid private detectives to infiltrate the group.

Nevertheless, the verdict was that the company had been libelled and it was awarded 60,000 in damages, later reduced to 40,000 on appeal.

For the multinational this was, however, a Pyrrhic victory; never before had the corporation been subjected to so much scrutiny.

Mark Stephens, a solicitor who advised the "McLibel Two" argues that, without their stand, the film Super Size Me (which shows the health effects of eating a diet of McDonald's food), could never have been shown in Britain.

"Even if it had wanted to immolate itself, McDonald's could hardly have done better. They [took] every opportunity to strike the match."

Yesterday's Court of Human Rights ruling was against the British Government rather than McDonald's because the "McLibel Two" claimed that they were deprived a fair trial. Judges found that the "denial of legal aid to the applicants had deprived them of the opportunity to present their case effectively".

The court found the damages were disproportionate and awarded financial damages of 13,750 to Steel and 10,300 to Morris, to be paid by the British Government.

Morris, a former postman, hailed the ruling as a "total victory".

"It shows that ordinary people like us can stand up against seemingly impossible odds and win".

Starmer said the verdict marks a "tuning point in libel law".

"Companies knew that people without money cannot fight libel cases so they use the law to threaten everyone. It was only when someone stood up and said, 'we have nothing to lose', that they went from a position of weakness to one of strength."

- INDEPENDENT