McLibel duo emerge triumphant from ECHR case
The pair of environmentalists who took fast food chain McDonald’s to court have sensationally won an appeal in the European Court of Human Rights against the British government.
Helen Steel and David Morris were sued by McDonald’s in 1990 after they produced a leaflet for Greenpeace entitled 'What’s Wrong With McDonald’s?'
After a lengthy trial and appeal to the Court of Appeal, during which Morris and Steel defended themselves, they were found liable for damages. But they appealed to Europe complaining that the proceedings were unfair because they were denied legal aid, and that the judgment was an interference with their right to freedom of expression.
This morning (15 February), a panel of seven judges including British judge Nicolas Bratza, found for Steel and Morris on both counts, awarding Steel damages of 20,000 euros and Morris 15,000 euros as well as costs of 47,311 euros.
Mark Stephens of Finers Stephens Innocent, instructing Keir Starmer QC of Doughty Street Chambers, acted for the appellants in the European court. Philip Sales of 11 King’s Bench Walk acted for the government.
McLibel Result
Hmmmm, so what's your opinion on this G?
The original trial was in favour of McDonalds - i.e. not everything on those leaflets they handed out was true. So now our good money is being handed out to these folk because they didn't get legal aid the first time round (to loose their case)!?!
Can't see it myself how being allowed to libel someone is a human right.
Most confusing.
The original trial was in favour of McDonalds - i.e. not everything on those leaflets they handed out was true. So now our good money is being handed out to these folk because they didn't get legal aid the first time round (to loose their case)!?!
Can't see it myself how being allowed to libel someone is a human right.
Most confusing.
I'm a bit biased as one of the duo is my friend's sister, so on a personal level I'm pleased for her family that that her persistence has reaped reward.
Aside from this, I think you have to forget about the case that McDonald's brought (this ruling will not alter the outcome of that trial) and think of the ruling as an important judgement which will help change our legal system, where, currently, money buys silence. Jeffrey Archer
, for example, frequently used this to his advantage, threatening anyone who considered criticising him, with a writ for libel.
Aside from this, I think you have to forget about the case that McDonald's brought (this ruling will not alter the outcome of that trial) and think of the ruling as an important judgement which will help change our legal system, where, currently, money buys silence. Jeffrey Archer
, for example, frequently used this to his advantage, threatening anyone who considered criticising him, with a writ for libel.www.porty.org.uk
quote Marya >>
Aside from this, I think you have to forget about the case that McDonald's brought (this ruling will not alter the outcome of that trial) and think of the ruling as an important judgement which will help change our legal system, where, currently, money buys silence. end quote<<
How very true!
Aside from this, I think you have to forget about the case that McDonald's brought (this ruling will not alter the outcome of that trial) and think of the ruling as an important judgement which will help change our legal system, where, currently, money buys silence. end quote<<
How very true!
The thing is, Wangi, it was found that not every single thing in the leaflet was true - but something like four out of five accusations were found to be true - I can't remember if I've got the exact ones, not having read coverage today, but it was something like McD's food is poor nutritionally, their practices involve cruelty to animals, something about infringing children's rights by advertising misleadingly, and underpaying their staff. All of these things were found to be true in the original case, and yet because McDs won because one other thing wasn't found to be true, there was no requisite for them to do anything about any of those practices.
The case was brought agains these two by McDonald's, suing them for libel; the infringement of their human rights was in not allowing them legal aid to defend themselves against a case which they were therefore bound to lose, and which therefore was bound to cost them a fortune. If they had committed rape, murder, child abuse, burglary, or even possibly dangerous driving, they could have got legal aid to defend themselves. Their human rights were breached therefore in that way; each person has a right to a defence, no matter what the case...but when a case is brought by a huge global corporation against two ordinary people, our system said that they, unlike murderers and rapists, didn't have a right to legal aid to defend themselves.
The question isn't whether or not the case was won, nor whether they have a right to libel; it's whether or not they had a fair trial, as it were. Their human rights were breached in not allowing them the same fair shot that other people in court cases get. Suggesting legal aid shouldn't be given after a case ends badly for the person requiring the legal aid is not really very helpful - legal aid is given in divorces all the time. One might say it's a waste of tax payers' money to have to pay for our failed relationships...but it's part of our right to things being fair in court.
Besides which, my understanding of legal aid is that if any financial gain is made from a case, the legal aid has to be repayed. Perhaps that's changed? I have been granted legal aid twice, and many people would be very unhappy about my being granted it the second time because they wouldn't like the court case, the outcome, nor the situation; but it's my right to have the same chance to go to court and present my case as well as possible as someone with more money has.
Just my thoughts.
The case was brought agains these two by McDonald's, suing them for libel; the infringement of their human rights was in not allowing them legal aid to defend themselves against a case which they were therefore bound to lose, and which therefore was bound to cost them a fortune. If they had committed rape, murder, child abuse, burglary, or even possibly dangerous driving, they could have got legal aid to defend themselves. Their human rights were breached therefore in that way; each person has a right to a defence, no matter what the case...but when a case is brought by a huge global corporation against two ordinary people, our system said that they, unlike murderers and rapists, didn't have a right to legal aid to defend themselves.
The question isn't whether or not the case was won, nor whether they have a right to libel; it's whether or not they had a fair trial, as it were. Their human rights were breached in not allowing them the same fair shot that other people in court cases get. Suggesting legal aid shouldn't be given after a case ends badly for the person requiring the legal aid is not really very helpful - legal aid is given in divorces all the time. One might say it's a waste of tax payers' money to have to pay for our failed relationships...but it's part of our right to things being fair in court.
Besides which, my understanding of legal aid is that if any financial gain is made from a case, the legal aid has to be repayed. Perhaps that's changed? I have been granted legal aid twice, and many people would be very unhappy about my being granted it the second time because they wouldn't like the court case, the outcome, nor the situation; but it's my right to have the same chance to go to court and present my case as well as possible as someone with more money has.
Just my thoughts.
All I really need is love, but a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt!
-Lucy Van Pelt (in Peanuts, by Charles M. Schulz)
-Lucy Van Pelt (in Peanuts, by Charles M. Schulz)