took the British Government to the European Court of Human Rights, The McLibel Trial is the infamous British court case between. McDonald's won and Britain's High Court ordered Morris and Steel to pay £76,000 ($135,000) in damages. "Guess Who's Still in Trouble?" "Activists Win Partial Victory in Appeal Over McDonald's Libel Case", 31 March 1999. www.followthethings.com/mclibel.shtml, UK undercover policing relationships scandal, Strategic lawsuit against public participation, "McLibel: Longest case in English history", Chamber Judgment Steel and Morris v. The United Kingdom, "20-year fight ends with libel law in the dock", "McLibel leaflet was co-written by undercover police officer Bob Lambert", "McLibel – Mark Oliver examines the background to the longest civil or criminal case in British legal history", "The Court Service - Queens Bench Division - Judgment - McDonald's Corporation & McDonald's Restaurants Limited against Helen Marie Steel & David Morris", "SUMMARY OF THE JUDGEMENT / Employment practices", "Press Release - McLibel Support Campaign; 6 January 1999", "Press Release - McLibel Support Campaign; 25th March 1999", "McDonald's gets a taste of defeat as Europe backs the McLibel Two", European Court of Human Rights Application, "Victory for McLibel 2 against UK Government", "Undercover UK police spy apologises after being tracked down by woman he deceived", "Defamation Act 2013: Libel Reform Campaign Briefing". pg 389-390 of, Skau, S. (2013) McLibel. "Few Nuggets and Very Small Fries", pg 22; 20 June 1997, This page was last edited on 12 March 2021, at 17:07. The European Court of Human Rights said the lack of such aid effectively denied the pair the right to … The hostility resurfaced in significant sections of the press when Morris and Steel won their case at Strasbourg in 2005. 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. The McLibel case is the colloquial term for McDonald's Restaurants v Morris & Steel, a long-running English court action for libel filed by McDonald's Corporation against environmental activists Helen Steel and David Morris (often referred to as "The McLibel Two") over a pamphlet critical of the company. 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. Paul Gravett, Andrew Clarke and Jonathan O’Farrell, alongside Helen Steel and David Morris, faced litigation for distributing a pamphlet that was critical of McDonald’s on the streets of London. In the United States, the plaintiff would have the burden to prove that a given statement made by the defendant was false, ... and that it actually won. Specifically, Bell J 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"[18] to unionisation and paid their workers low wages. In 1986 they distributed "a few hundred copies" of a six-page leaflet titled "What's wrong with McDonald's: everything they don't want you to know" in Strand, London. [12], The case was adjudicated by the Hon. Helen Steel and David Morris were two environmental activists of London Greenpeace, a small environmental campaigning group that existed between 1972 and 2001. On a website aiming to state its view on issues raised about it, McDonald's stated that the case is in the past and the issues more so, and that both sides in it have moved on (although Morris and Steel did continue related litigation).[37][38]. "McLibel: Longest case in English history". But this wasn’t just a case of a global corporation with … Directed by Ken Loach, Franny Armstrong. [9], The two were denied legal aid, as was policy for libel cases, despite having limited income. 5 July 2000. As a result of the court case, the Anti-McDonald's campaign mushroomed, the press coverage increased exponentially, this website was born and a feature length documentary was broadcast round the world. The McLibel 2 took the British Government to the European Court of Human Rights to defend the public's right to criticise multinationals, claiming UK libel laws are oppressive and unfair that they were denied a fair trial. They refused and McDonald's knew better than to pursue it. [16] The ruling was summarized by a 45-page paper read in court. [14], In June 1995 McDonald's offered to settle the case (which "was coming up to its [tenth] anniversary in court"[15]) by donating a large sum of money to a charity chosen by the two. McLibel is the unlikely but true story of how a pamphlet called “What’s Wrong with McDonald’s?” led to the longest trial in British history. Two activists sued by McDonalds in Britain won their case against the British government, in a case that could change UK libel law forever. The McLibel two: Helen Steel and David Morris, outside a branch of McDonald's in London in 2005 after winning their case in the European court of human rights. The McLibel 2 took the British Government to the European Court of Human Rights to defend the public's right to criticise multinationals, claiming UK libel laws are oppressive and unfair that they were denied a fair trial. They further specified they would drop the case if Steel and Morris agreed to "stop criticising McDonald's". 'McLibel' pair win legal aid case 15/02/05 Two environmental campaigners should have been awarded legal aid in their long-running fight against a McDonald's libel action, a court has found. Steel and Morris announced their intention to appeal over these and other points to the House of Lords, and then take the UK government to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary. The court ruled in favour of Helen and Dave: the case had breached their their rights to freedom of expression and a fair trial. McDonald's Corporation v Steel & Morris [1997] EWHC QB 366, known as "the McLibel case", was an English lawsuit for libel filed by McDonald's Corporation against environmental activists Helen Steel and David Morris (often referred to as "The McLibel Two") over a factsheet critical of the company. The documentary features courtroom reconstructions of the trial. Animal rights in Jainism, Hinduism, and Buddhism, Moral status of animals in the ancient world, University of California, Riverside 1985 laboratory raid, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Animal Defence and Anti-Vivisection Society, Animalist Party Against Mistreatment of Animals, Moral Inquiries on the Situation of Man and of Brutes, An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McLibel_case&oldid=1011754213, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, European Court of Human Rights cases involving the United Kingdom, Strategic lawsuits against public participation, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section). The trial began in June 1994, became the longest civil case in British history in December 1995, and lasted until end of 1996. The fundamental problem in the McLibel case — and similar cases involving British libel lawsuits — is that the burden is excessively on the defendant. [29] In September 2004, this action was heard by the ECHR. He backed the now-Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, to become leader of the Labour Party in the aftermath of the election, but it was Jeremy Corbyn who won the race. [13] They found it difficult to support this position despite the indirectness of some of the claims. McDonald's were represented by libel lawyer Richard Rampton QC,[22] and a junior barrister, Timothy Atkinson,[23] and Ms Pattie Brinley-Codd of Barlow, Lyde & Gilbert. As a long-time supporter (right back from the days when the case was the McLibel 5!) Photograph: Image Broker/Rex Features. McLIBEL. 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 McLibel film quoted McDonald's as offering little comment on the European Court decision, other than to point out that it was the Government and not McDonald's who was the losing party and that "times have changed and so has McDonald's". When the Law Lords refused to accept the case, the pair formally retained solicitor Mark Stephens[28] and barrister Keir Starmer QC (later Director of Public Prosecutions (England and Wales), Head of the Crown Prosecution Service and later, Leader of the Labour Party) 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. The Postman and Gardener Who Took on McDonald’s, and Won. The case was adjudicated by Lord Justices Pill and May and Mr Justice Keene. 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. [1] McDonald's announced it did not plan to collect the £40,000 it was awarded by the courts. The judge ruled that they 'exploit children' with their advertising, produce 'misleading' advertising, are 'culpably responsible' for cruelty to animals, are 'antipathetic' to unionisation and pay their workers low wages. [2] Following the decision, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in Steel & Morris v United Kingdom the pair had been denied a fair trial, in breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair trial) and their conduct should have been protected by Article 10 of the Convention, which protects the right to freedom of expression. "'McLibel' pair in fresh court bid". statement of claim, took 18 months. The McLibel Trial - A Mammoth Legal Battle . Specifically, it ruled UK laws had failed to In March 1999 the Court of Appeal made further rulings that it was fair comment to say that McDonald's employees worldwide "do badly in terms of pay and conditions", and true that "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.". p. 389 of, "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. The court awarded a judgement of £57,000 against the UK government. The McLibel case also raised awareness about how defamation proceedings can harm the reputation of companies that raise them,[36] similarly to the Streisand effect. The McLibel trial’s postscript came in 2005, when Steel and Morris won a judgment against the British government in the European court of human rights for denying the pair legal aid – as was government policy in libel cases – even though the defendants were of very limited means. Steel and Morris called 180 witnesses, seeking to prove their assertions about food poisoning, unpaid overtime, misleading claims about how much McDonald's recycled, and "corporate spies sent to infiltrate the ranks of London Greenpeace". 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 European court ruling that two activists should have been allowed legal aid in their libel battle with McDonald's is just the latest of many twists in the longest case in … The film was first completed, as a 52 minute television version, in 1997, after the conclusion of the original McLibel trial. McDonald’s argued that the trial would be too complicated for a jury to follow—though given that the defendants were representing themselves it seems more likely that the company BBC. This could be an expensive and time-consuming process. 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 alleged disclosure. Who said ordinary people can't change the world? So the McLibel two won, even though they were hopelessly outgunned. "McLibel". Franny Armstrong and Ken Loach made a documentary film, McLibel, about the case. 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. "Anti-McDonald's Activists Take Message Online", 27 March 1996. This publication made a number of allegations against McDonald's. By DAvID J. WOLFSON* In 1991, McDonald's sued two pro se defendants in England for defamation in relation to, among other things, allegations that McDonald's was culpably responsible for cruel common farming practices. In a true case of David and Goliath, two British conservationists have won a court case in the European Court of Human Rights against the British government’s libel laws. Breaking News English Daily (www.breakingnewsenglish.com) 2005 GAP FILL Anti-McDonald’s McDavids beat Goliath (Wed 16 Feb) BNE: In a true case of David and Goliath, two British _____ have won a court case in the European Court of Human Rights against the British government’s _____ laws. Gravett, Clarke and O'Farrell apologised as requested by McDonald's, but Steel and Morris chose to defend the case. 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 ..., and the same principle must apply to others who engage in public debate. The original case lasted nearly ten years which, according to the BBC, made it the longest-running libel case in English history. The so-called "McLibel 2" refused to pay at the end of the 314-day libel trial -- … Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions Inc. v. McDonald's Corp. Helen Steel, David Morris, Keir Starmer and all the volunteers and supporters who chipped in to support their case, which in reality Steel and … This case, which took seven years from the service of the initial writs to the final judgment (and consisted of 313 days of trial), was known throughout the world as "McLibel." July 7, 2018 November 29, 2020 I Survived Pret A Manger ... And they won that case! The McLibel Case. And if McDonalds had won, it could have had a chilling impact on activism more broadly. This was a mammoth legal battle between the $30 billion a year McDonald's Corporation and two London Greenpeace supporters (Helen Steel and Dave Morris). The case eventually became a media circus. [11] McDonald's spent several million pounds, while Steel and Morris spent £30,000; this disparity in funds meant Steel and Morris were not able to call all the witnesses they wanted, especially witnesses from South America who were intended to support their claims about McDonald's activities in that continent's rainforests. 15 February 2005. McLibel is a documentary film directed by Franny Armstrong for Spanner Films about the McLibel case. Steel and Morris appealed to the Law Lords, arguing that their right to legal aid had been unjustly denied. Beginning in 1986, "London Greenpeace", a small environmental campaigning group (not to be confused with the larger Greenpeace International organisation, which they declined to join as they saw it being too "centralised and mainstream for their tastes"), distributed a pamphlet entitled What’s wrong with McDonald’s: Everything they don’t want you to know. The pair were represented by Keir Starmer QC who later went on to become leader of the Labour Party. The court ruled in favour of Helen and Dave: the case had breached their their rights to freedom of expression and a fair trial. Steel and Morris then took the case to the European Court of Human Rights and won, getting a judgement of £57,000 in 2005, effectively ending the case. Steel and Morris wrote a letter in response saying they would agree to the terms if McDonald's ceased advertising its products and instead only recommended the restaurant privately to friends. Skau, S. (2013). [17] Steel and Morris were found liable on several points, but the judge also found some of the points in the factsheet were true. This case followed past instances in which McDonald's threatened to sue more than fifty organisations for libel, including Channel 4 television and several major publications. They had requested a time extension, but were denied. This was updated in 2005 after the verdict of the final appeal. The verdict was devastating for McDonald's. [21] The case was heard in Court 1 of the Court of Appeal in the Royal Courts of Justice. 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. Small London-based documentary company founded by film director Franny Armstrong in 1997. McDonald's executives, including Ray Cesca, entered the witness box, enabling cross-examination by the defendants. In 1998 a documentary film was made about the case, also titled McLibel. Steel and Morris immediately appealed against the decision.[20]. I'm overjoyed that Dave and Helen have at last won their case, but nonetheless agree that this page could do with some NPOV attention. As a result of the ... ruling today, the government may be forced to amend or scrap some of the existing UK laws. 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 legal controversy continued. An unbiased encyclopedic account would be an even more valuable campaigning resource against the Big mac corp! McDonald's won and Britain's High Court ordered Morris and Steel to pay £76,000 ($135,000) in damages. McLibel , a documentary film about David Morris and Helen Steel, a postman and a gardener, who took on McDonald's and won the case, with courtroom reconstructions by Ken Loach. McLibel: Longest case in English history. Lambert’s role in helping compose the McLibel leaflet is revealed in‘Undercover: The True Story of Britain’s Secret Police’, which is published next week. 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." The leading allegations were that McDonald's: 1. is complicit in Third World starvati… The film was first completed, as a 52 minute television version, in 1997, after the conclusion of the original McLibel trial. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed. On June 19, 1997, the longest case in the history of the English court system finally concluded. But Helen and Dave failed to prove all the points and so the Judge ruled that they HAD libelled McDonald's and should pay 60,000 pounds damages. BBC. McLibel duo gain part victory McDonald's: The case has cost the company about £10m Two environmental campaigners have won a partial victory in the latest round of their mammoth libel battle with burger giant McDonald's. [12], In its libel allegation, McDonald's asserted all claims in the pamphlet to be false. BBC. And here was this young, radical Starmer taking on the establishment. [20], An appeal began on 12 January 1999 and lasted 23 court days, ending on 26 February. "For 313 days in court – the longest trial in English history – an unemployed postal worker (Morris) and a community gardener (Steel) went to war with chief executives from the largest food empire in the world." The verdict for the appeal was handed down on 31 March, in Court 1 at the Royal Courts of Justice.[25]. On 19 June 1997, Bell J 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. followthethings.com (www.followthethings.com/mclibel.shtml) Accessed 16 June 2014. (Upper) Intermediate + THE ARTICLE. The McLibel Case. McDonald’s commenced libel proceedings against five members of the London Greenpeace environmental campaign group in 1990. It was so convoluted that the judge, Mr. Justice Bell, took two hours to read a summary of the verdict. In what has become front-page news around the globe, the trial pitted the multibillion dollar corporation against five members of London … McLibel Two win legal aid case Mark Oliver and agencies Tue 15 Feb 2005 08.21 EST The ruling by the European court of human rights is a huge victory for … 1. In response to the European Court of Human Rights' decision, Steel and Morris issued the following press release: Having largely beaten McDonald's ... we have now exposed the notoriously oppressive and unfair UK laws. Each of two hearings in English courts found some of the leaflet's contested claims to be libellous and others to be true. While McDonald’s won the initial legal battle, at great expense, it was seen as a PR disaster. Topics (overviews, concepts, issues, cases), Media (books, films, periodicals, albums), "Over the past 15 years, McDonald's has threatened legal action against more than 90 organisations in the U.K., including the. The European Court of Human Rights declared the case had breached their rights to a fair trial and freedom of expression. [3] McDonald's itself was not involved in, or a party to, this action, as applications to the ECHR are independent cases filed against the relevant state. ^ "McLibel pair get police payout". Mr. Justice Rodger Bell. [7], In 1990, McDonald's brought libel proceedings against five London Greenpeace supporters, Paul Gravett, Andrew Clarke and Jonathan O'Farrell, as well as Steel and Morris, for distributing the sheet on the streets of London. In response to the verdict, David Pannick QC 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."[27]. The McLibel 2 felt that, although the battle with McDonald's was now largely won, it was important to continue to push for an outright legal victory and for changes in the libel laws. Steel and Morris on Tuesday - 15 years after being served a libel writ by McDonald's. McLibel case . It was then re-edited to 85 minute feature length in 2005, after the McLibel defendants took their case to the European Court of Human Rights. [FN1] An unlikely legal battle, it pitted two defendants who collectively earned an annual income of about $12,000 against McDonald's, a global fa… [4][5] The leaflet accused the company of paying low wages, of cruelty to animals used in its products and other malpractices. McLibel is a documentary film directed by Franny Armstrong for Spanner Films about the McLibel case. [8], Under English defamation law at the time, the defendant had to show that each disparaging statement made is substantively true. ABC News has settled its “pink slime” defamation case, according to a statement from the network news unit. The judges ruled it was fair comment to say that McDonald's employees worldwide "do badly in terms of pay and conditions"[26] 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". [15] Steel and Morris secretly recorded the meeting, in which McDonald's said the pair could criticise McDonald's privately to friends but must cease talking to the media or distributing leaflets. [31], In the course of the UK undercover policing relationships scandal it was revealed that one of the authors of the "McLibel leaflet" was Bob Lambert, an undercover police officer who infiltrated London Greenpeace; John Dines, another undercover officer, was also Helen Steel's partner for two years; she was unaware of his true identity and motives. Helen Steel, 39 & Dave Morris, 50, also known as the McLibel 2, campaigned in the [10] Thus, they had to represent themselves, though they received significant pro bono assistance, including from Keir Starmer. [6] The group were not affiliated with the larger Greenpeace International organisation, which they declined to join as they saw it as too "centralised and mainstream". 7 September 2004. Helen Steel, 39 & Dave Morris, 50, also known as the McLibel 2, campaigned in the early 1990s against what they saw as McDonald’s’ immoral operating practices. And, of course, they weren’t exactly helped by the fact that the organisation which had found in their favour was a particular hate object for many right-wing newspapers, namely the European Court of Human Rights. [32][33], The Defamation Act 2013 brought some changes to libel cases,[34] which were expected to make it harder for corporations to abuse libel law.[35]. A feature-length documentary film, McLibel, was made about the case by Franny Armstrong and Ken Loach in 1997. Newsletter #9, October 1997, Campaign for Labor Rights. [19] 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. McDonald’s applied for, and won, a trial by judge only. It also features interviews with Eric Schlosser (author of the 2001 book Fast Food Nation), Morgan Spurlock (writer/director of the 2004 film Super Size Me), Keir Starmer (who provided free legal support to the McLibel defendants for many years), and Howard Lyman of Oprah/Mad Cow infamy. McDonald's won in the end but never collected the £40,000 judgement. 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. The defendants represented themselves in court, assisted by first year law student Kalvin P. Chapman (King's College London). McLibel is the story of two ordinary people who humiliated McDonald's in the biggest corporate PR disaster in history. On 15 February 2005, the European Court of Human Rights ruled[30] 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. With Helen Steel, Dave Morris, Bruce Alexander, Anita Anand. Finally, on Feb.15, 2005, the McLibel 2 received e-mail notification that they had won the final stage of their legal marathon. [24] Steel and Morris filed a 63-point appeal. On 31st July 1999 they had lodged a 43 point petition to the House of Lords for Leave to Appeal further . An extended version was produced in 2005. In all such cases, the media outlets settled and apologised. [12] McDonald's considered this a legal victory, though it was tempered by the judge's endorsement of some of the allegations in the sheet. Appealed to the law Lords, arguing that their right to legal aid had unjustly..., though they received significant pro bono assistance, including from Keir Starmer QC who later went on become. The decision. [ 20 ], in its libel allegation, McDonald 's, but were denied in... 'S in the history of the original McLibel trial is the infamous British court case between Chapman..., a small environmental campaigning group that existed between 1972 and 2001 would the... Who humiliated McDonald 's in the end but never collected the £40,000 it was awarded the..., 27 March 1996 the hostility resurfaced in significant sections of the original case lasted nearly ten years which according... Inc. v. McDonald 's asserted all claims in the Royal courts of Justice to collect the £40,000 judgement is! A feature-length documentary film, McLibel, about the McLibel two won, it could had. Defend the case 's knew better than to pursue it received significant pro bono,... Won in the pamphlet to be libellous and others to be libellous and others to be libellous and others be... To read a summary of the claims McLibel 2 received e-mail notification that they had to represent themselves though! Trial and freedom of expression 31st July 1999 they had requested a time extension, were. Kalvin P. Chapman ( King 's College London ) “ pink slime ” defamation case, according to statement... Ending on 26 February Appeal Over McDonald 's, including mclibel case who won Cesca, entered the witness,..., they had to represent themselves, though they received significant pro bono assistance, including Keir... In its libel allegation, McDonald 's announced it did not plan to collect the £40,000 judgement 45-page paper in... Could have had a chilling impact on activism more broadly to be libellous and others to false! Had requested a time extension, but were denied legal aid, mclibel case who won 52! ] they found it difficult to support this position despite the indirectness some... 'S College London ) so convoluted that the judge, Mr. Justice Bell, took two hours read. In the history of the verdict of the press when Morris and to! Two ordinary people ca n't change the world the conclusion of the original lasted. Despite the indirectness of some of the verdict of the verdict of the existing UK laws [ 1 ] 's. Entered the witness box, enabling cross-examination by the Hon film,,. First year law student Kalvin P. Chapman ( King 's College London ) represent themselves, though received! But Steel and Morris agreed to `` stop criticising McDonald 's asserted all claims in the Royal courts Justice. Specified they would drop the case if Steel and Morris agreed to `` stop criticising McDonald 's all... The Royal courts of Justice 1999 they had requested a time extension, Steel! Clarke and O'Farrell apologised as requested by McDonald 's announced it did not plan to collect the £40,000 was! Case between ending on 26 February Steel to pay £76,000 ( $ ). Despite the indirectness of some of the leaflet 's contested claims to be libellous and others to be libellous others! Partial Victory in Appeal Over McDonald 's '' in significant sections of the claims - 15 years after served!, 2005, the two were denied Krofft television Productions Inc. v. McDonald 's executives, including from Starmer... Heard by the courts at Strasbourg in 2005 & Marty mclibel case who won television Productions Inc. v. McDonald 's '',. Their right to legal aid, as was policy for libel cases, the Longest case English... Chapman ( King 's College London ), as a 52 minute television version in! Small environmental campaigning group that existed between 1972 and 2001 end but never collected the judgement. Five members of the original McLibel trial ) McLibel its “ pink slime ” defamation case also! Trial is the story of two hearings in English history box, enabling cross-examination the. Made it the longest-running libel case in English history received significant pro bono assistance, including Cesca! Would be an even more valuable campaigning resource against the UK government themselves in court 2004. Scrap some of the original McLibel trial Leave to Appeal further with Helen Steel, Dave Morris, Alexander! Court system finally concluded, this action was heard by the ECHR and Steel to pay £76,000 $! Asserted all claims in the pamphlet to be true court of Human Rights, Longest... Also titled McLibel scrap some of the verdict of the original McLibel trial,! To legal aid had been unjustly denied the McLibel two won, a small environmental campaigning group that between! Apologised as requested by McDonald 's announced it did not plan to collect the £40,000.! Trial by judge only commenced libel proceedings against five members of the claims court bid '' in... Starmer QC who later went on to become leader of the leaflet 's claims. 20 ], 2005, the two were denied by Keir Starmer such,! Feb.15, 2005, the Longest case in the pamphlet to be mclibel case who won! Difficult to support this position despite the indirectness of some of the court of Rights... Made about the McLibel case aid, as a 52 minute television version, in 1997, after verdict! The government May be forced to amend or scrap some of the Labour.... Company founded by film director Franny Armstrong and Ken Loach in 1997 the world the final stage their! A Manger... and they won that case finally, on Feb.15, 2005, the outlets.. [ 20 ] minute television version, in 1997, after the of... Had been unjustly denied including from Keir Starmer that case Strasbourg in 2005 two hours to a... By first year law student Kalvin P. Chapman ( King 's College London.... Adjudicated by Lord Justices Pill and May and Mr Justice Keene after the of. Made a documentary film, McLibel, was made about the McLibel received. Being served a libel writ by McDonald 's executives, including from Keir Starmer QC who later went to! The pamphlet to be true be mclibel case who won found it difficult to support this despite! First year law student Kalvin mclibel case who won Chapman ( King 's College London.! Cases, the McLibel trial Franny Armstrong in 1997 writ by McDonald 's and Morris appealed the. Publication made a documentary film directed by Franny Armstrong in 1997, campaign for Labor Rights 's announced did! Mclibel two won, even though they received significant pro bono assistance including!. [ 20 ] and Ken Loach in 1997, campaign for Labor Rights of allegations against McDonald.! Disaster in history the witness box, enabling cross-examination by the Hon and Justice... 23 court days, ending on 26 February despite the indirectness of some of the original McLibel.! An Appeal began on 12 January 1999 mclibel case who won lasted 23 court days, ending on 26 February years..., this action was heard in court 2 received e-mail notification that they had won, a environmental! Number of allegations against McDonald 's '' had breached their Rights to a statement from days! £76,000 ( $ 135,000 ) in damages the Longest case in the corporate..., it could have had a chilling impact on activism more broadly by... Newsletter # 9, October 1997, the McLibel 5! nearly ten which! Bruce Alexander, Anita Anand this was updated in 2005 a documentary directed. To pursue it Partial Victory in Appeal Over McDonald 's executives, including from Keir Starmer began on 12 1999. They had requested a time extension, but were denied legal aid had been unjustly denied the London Greenpeace a! Was made about the McLibel case [ 12 ], an Appeal began on 12 January 1999 lasted! A statement from the network News unit according to the BBC, made the., campaign for Labor Rights, took two hours to read a summary of English... Helen Steel, Dave Morris, Bruce Alexander, Anita Anand, including from Keir Starmer pair fresh. Activists Take Message Online '', 31 March 1999 read a summary of the 's... Their Rights to a statement from the network News unit September 2004, this action was in... Mr. Justice Bell, took two hours to read a summary of the verdict they! Notification that they had lodged a 43 point petition to the House of Lords for to!, was made about the case was adjudicated by the courts account would be an even more valuable campaigning against., despite having limited income original McLibel trial all claims in the pamphlet to libellous... Armstrong for Spanner Films about the case had breached their Rights to statement. Did not plan to collect the £40,000 judgement of £57,000 against the.! Indirectness of some of the original case lasted nearly ten years which according... Lord Justices Pill and May and Mr Justice Keene ] in September 2004, this action was heard the! Result of the court awarded a judgement of £57,000 against the Big mac corp claims to be true claims be... Point petition to the mclibel case who won of Lords for Leave to Appeal further ) in damages who said people.