McDonald's Protesters Win in Court

McDonald's Protesters Win in Court

European Panel Voids British Libel Ruling in Saga That Began in 1980s

By Glenn Frankel
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, February 16, 2005; Page A12

LONDON, Feb. 15 -- The longest-running case in English legal history neared the end of the road Tuesday when the European Court of Human Rights ruled that two environmental activists whom McDonald's successfully sued for libel 15 years ago did not receive a fair trial and had been denied freedom of expression.

A triumphant Dave Morris and Helen Steel stood outside the McDonald's in central London where the saga began two decades ago and declared total victory over the fast-food giant. They and their joyous supporters handed out copies of a scathing anti-McDonald's leaflet similar to the one that triggered the original libel suit, and they pledged to renew their campaign against McDonald's and other corporate behemoths that they claim are ruining the world's agriculture, environment and large intestines.

The McLibel Case, as it came to be known, consumed 314 days in court and cost McDonald's more than $16 million in legal fees as well as a super-sized helping of bad publicity. Although a British judge upheld the activists' right to make some of their allegations, McDonald's won the original verdict in 1997 and a $98,000 libel award. That sum was reduced by one-third on appeal.

On Tuesday, the rest of it went down the drain. A seven-judge panel in Strasbourg, France, threw out the original judgment, ruling unanimously that Morris and Steel should have received legal aid from the British government to defend themselves. The ruling was a blow not only to McDonald's but also to Britain's libel laws, which compared with U.S. laws tend to favor plaintiffs.

"We won hands down on both our points -- that the libel laws in this country are oppressive and they're unfair," Morris told reporters gathered on the Strand, the central London thoroughfare where the restaurant is located. Below a full-color poster in the display window trumpeting the fast-food chain's new bacon-and-egg bagel, Morris taped up a hand-lettered sign proclaiming: "Celebrate 20 Years of Resistance to McWorld!"

McDonald's, which was not a party to the proceedings at the European court -- Morris and Steel had sued the British government there -- declined to comment on the decision. But it noted that "although the so-called 'McLibel' case came to court in 1994, the allegations related to practices in the '80s. The world has moved on since then and so has McDonald's."

It all began in September 1985 when activists for London Greenpeace -- no relation to the international Greenpeace group -- started picketing McDonald's on the Strand. The following year they handed out a five-page leaflet titled "What's wrong with McDonald's." It displayed a cartoon of a man wearing a Stetson hat and hiding behind a "Ronald McDonald" clown mask, along with the words "McDollars, McGreedy, McCancer, McMurder, McDisease . . . " superimposed over the golden arches symbol.

The leaflet accused the company of contributing to Third World poverty, destroying rain forests, exploiting cheap labor and using deceptive advertising, as well as poisoning children with bad food.

McDonald's denied the allegations, saying it was a good corporate citizen that paid close attention to environmental and nutritional concerns.

Because London Greenpeace was not an incorporated body, the company hired seven private investigators whom it sent undercover to try to figure out who was responsible, according to court papers. The investigators obtained confidential information from police files on activists. The company threatened legal action against a number of groups and activists, who backed down. But Morris, now 50, an unemployed former postal worker, and Steel, now 39, a part-time bar worker, decided to make a legal stand.

Transcripts of the trial took approximately 20,000 pages, and there were about 40,000 pages of documentary evidence. In addition to many written witness statements, 130 witnesses testified. Although the defendants raised and spent about $60,000 in legal fees, they worked without lawyers, while the company fielded a full battery of libel specialists and researchers. In a 762-page judgment in 1997, a judge ruled for McDonald's on most counts.

The company never sought to collect. "We have always said it was not our intention to bankrupt the defendants," a spokeswoman said at the time. But appeals dragged on for eight more years.

In 2000, Steel and Morris went to the European court, which hears claims of violations of the European Convention on Human Rights, a 1950 document laying out fundamentals of human rights in post-World War II Europe. Their action against the British government contended that its refusal to give legal aid denied them a free hearing in violation of the convention and deprived them of freedom of expression.

In its ruling, the Strasbourg court emphasized that the activists had not brought the original case but were simply seeking to protect their right of free expression against legal action by a multinational corporation.

"As a result of the law as it stood in England and Wales, the applicants had the choice either to withdraw the leaflet and apologize to McDonald's, or bear the burden of proving, without legal aid, the truth of the allegations contained in it," wrote the judges. "Given the enormity and complexity of that undertaking, the court does not consider that the correct balance was struck between the need to protect the applicants' rights to freedom of expression and the need to protect McDonald's rights and reputation."

The court ordered the British government to pay Morris and Steel the equivalent of about $105,000 in damages and costs. The government has three months to appeal the decision.

A spokesman for the British Department for Constitutional Affairs said the government would "study the judgment very carefully." Some analysts say the decision could bring changes in British policy concerning aid to libel defendants.

Steel said she and Morris never expected the case to drag on so long, but also never intended to back down. "We would never have paid them anything," she said of McDonald's. "They're the ones with something to apologize for, not us."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27307-2005Feb15.html