Editing McLibel case (section)

===Judgment===

====High Court====
The case was adjudicated by Mr Justice Rodger Bell.<!-- Negative statement about an apparently still living person absolutely needs a citation - see [[WP:BLP]]: <ref>Bell had never tried or appeared as counsel in a libel case. His practice had been primarily criminal law and professional negligence, and some felt that he was "led" by Richard Rampton. for McDonald's, throughout most of the case.{{citation needed|date=March 2016}}</ref>--> On 19 June 1997, Bell delivered his more than 1,000-page judgment largely in favour of McDonald's, finding the claims that McDonald's was responsible for starvation and deforestation were false and libellous.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j379/mcdonalds_190697.htm |title=The Court Service – Queens Bench Division – Judgment – McDonald's Corporation & McDonald's Restaurants Limited against Helen Marie Steel & David Morris |publisher=Hmcourts-service.gov.uk |access-date=13 November 2008 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080605062408/http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j379/mcdonalds_190697.htm |archive-date = 5 June 2008}}</ref> The ruling was summarized by a 45-page paper read in court.<ref>"On 19 June 1997, the judge finally handed down the verdict....It felt like an eternity to most of us sitting there, as Mr Justice 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 factsheet'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." pp. 389–390 of ''No Logo''.</ref> Steel and Morris were found liable on several points, but the judge also found some of the points in the factsheet were true.<ref name="autogenerated1"/> McDonald's considered this a legal victory, though it was tempered by the judge's endorsement of some of the allegations in the sheet. Specifically, Bell ruled that McDonald's endangered the [[health]] of their workers and customers by "misleading advertising", that they "exploit children", that they were "culpably responsible" in the infliction of unnecessary [[cruelty to animals]], and they were "antipathetic"<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.mcspotlight.org/case/trial/verdict/verdict10_sum.html |title=SUMMARY OF THE JUDGEMENT / Employment practices |access-date=26 May 2013 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180824121253/http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/trial/verdict/verdict10_sum.html |archive-date=24 August 2018}}</ref> to [[Trade union|unionisation]] and paid their workers low wages.<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.mcspotlight.org/case/trial/verdict/quotes.html |date= 19 June 1997 |title= Judgement Day Verdict – Highlights |publisher = McSpotlight |access-date = 14 July 2006 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190608203254/http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/trial/verdict/quotes.html |archive-date=8 June 2019 }}</ref> 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 against the decision.<ref name="BBC payout">{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/820786.stm |title=McLibel pair get police payout |website=[[BBC News]] |access-date=12 May 2007 | date=5 July 2000}}</ref>

In 1998 a documentary film was made about the case, also titled [[McLibel (film)|''McLibel'']]. This was updated in 2005 after the verdict of the final appeal.

In September 1998, the pair sued the [[Metropolitan Police]] for disclosing confidential information to investigators hired by McDonald's and received £10,000 and an apology for the disclosure.<ref name="BBC payout" />

====Court of Appeal====
An appeal began on 12 January 1999, and lasted 23 court days, ending on 26 February.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/press/msc_6jan99.html |title=Press Release – McLibel Support Campaign; 6 January 1999 |publisher=Mcspotlight.org |access-date=13 November 2008}}</ref>  The case was heard in Court 1 of the Court of Appeal in the [[Royal Courts of Justice]]. The case was adjudicated by [[Malcolm Pill|Lord Justices Pill]] and [[Anthony May (judge)|May]] and [[David Keene (judge)|Mr Justice Keene]]. The defendants represented themselves in court, assisted by first year law student Kalvin P. Chapman ([[King's College London]]). McDonald's were represented by libel lawyer [[Richard Rampton]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.onebrickcourt.com/barristers.asp?id=20|title=One Brick Court – Barristers<!-- Bot generated title -->|website=onebrickcourt.com|access-date=15 February 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081220155036/http://www.onebrickcourt.com/barristers.asp?id=20|archive-date=20 December 2008|url-status=dead}}</ref> and a junior barrister, Timothy Atkinson,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mcspotlight.org/people/biogs/atkinson.html|title=Curriculum Vitae – Timothy Atkinson|website=www.mcspotlight.org}}</ref> and Ms Pattie Brinley-Codd of Barlow, Lyde & Gilbert.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mcspotlight.org/people/biogs/brinley_codd.html|title=Curriculum Vitae – Patti Brinley-Codd|website=www.mcspotlight.org}}</ref> 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 31 March, in Court 1 at the Royal Courts of Justice.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/press/msc_25mar99.html|title=Press Release – McLibel Support Campaign; 25th March 1999|website=www.mcspotlight.org}}</ref>

The judges ruled it was fair comment to say that McDonald's employees worldwide "do badly in terms of pay and conditions"<ref>[Appeal Judgment p247]</ref> and true "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".

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. 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. Steel and Morris announced their intention to appeal over these and other points to the [[House of Lords]], and then take the [[UK Government|UK government]] to the [[European Court of Human Rights]] if necessary.

In response to the verdict, [[David Pannick, Baron Pannick|David Pannick]] said in ''[[The Times]]'': "The McLibel case has achieved what many lawyers thought impossible: to lower further the reputation of our law of defamation in the minds of all right thinking people."<ref>''The Times'', 24 April 1999.</ref>

Steel and Morris appealed to the [[Judicial functions of the House of Lords|Law Lords]], arguing that their right to legal aid had been unjustly denied. When the Law Lords refused to accept the case, the pair formally retained [[solicitor]] [[Mark Stephens (solicitor)|Mark Stephens]]<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article515008.ece|title=McDonald's gets a taste of defeat as Europe backs the McLibel Two|work=The Times|date=16 February 2005|access-date=29 January 2011|location=London|first=Frances|last=Gibb}}{{dead link|date=September 2024|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref> and [[barrister]] [[Keir Starmer]] to file 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, and setting out a highly detailed case for what they believed to be the oppressive and unfair nature of UK libel laws in general, and in their case in particular.<ref>[http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/trial/verdict/Echr.html European Court of Human Rights Application<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> 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.

====European Court of Human Rights====
[[File:Anti-McDonalds protest Leicester Square London 20041016.jpg|thumb|right|An anti-McDonald's leafleting campaign in front of the McDonald's restaurant in [[Leicester Square]], London, during the [[European Social Forum]] season, 16 October 2004]]
On 15 February 2005, the European Court of Human Rights ruled<ref name="echr">{{cite web|url=https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-68224|title=HUDOC – European Court of Human Rights|website=hudoc.echr.coe.int}}</ref> 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 because of the defendants' comparative lack of resources and what they believed were complex and oppressive UK libel laws.

In particular the Court held:
{{quote|in a democratic society even small and informal campaign groups, such as London Greenpeace, must be able to carry on their activities effectively and that there exists a strong public interest in enabling such groups and individuals outside the mainstream to contribute to the public debate by disseminating information and ideas on matters of general public interest such as health and the environment.|ECHR judgment, para. 89<ref name="echr"/>}}
{{quote|The safeguard afforded by Article 10 to journalists in relation to reporting on issues of general interest is subject to the proviso that they act in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism&nbsp;..., and the same principle must apply to others who engage in public debate.|ECHR judgment, para. 90<ref name="echr"/>}}
{{quote|It is true that large public companies inevitably and knowingly lay themselves open to close scrutiny of their acts and, as in the case of the businessmen and women who manage them, the limits of acceptable criticism are wider in the case of such companies.|ECHR judgment, para. 94<ref name="echr"/>}}

In response to the European Court of Human Rights' decision, Steel and Morris issued the following press release:

<blockquote>Having largely beaten McDonald's&nbsp;... we have now exposed the notoriously oppressive and unfair UK laws. As a result of the&nbsp;... 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.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/press/releases/msc150205.html
| title = Victory for McLibel 2 against UK Government | publisher = McSpotlight
| date = 15 February 2005 | access-date = 14 July 2006 }}</ref> </blockquote>