23 February 2005
EUROPEAN COURT VINDICATES MCLIBEL PAIR
In what ARTICLE 19 is calling a groundbreaking judgment, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that a libel trial launched by McDonalds against two environmental activists in the 1990s was unfair and violated their right to freedom of expression.
On 15 February 2005, the court ruled that the denial of legal aid to defendants Helen Steel and David Morris constituted a violation of the pair's right to a fair trial.
The court also held that the £70,000 (US$134,000) fine which the defendants were ordered to pay McDonalds was disproportionate to the harm done and violated their right to freedom of expression.
The court awarded damages of £13,750 (US$26,000) to Steel and £10,300 (US$20,000) to Morris.
Steel and Morris had been sued by McDonalds for their involvement in the production of a leaflet claiming that McDonalds exploited children, that its food was unhealthy and that it was partly to blame for the destruction of rainforest habitat. Denied access to legal aid, they were forced to defend themselves in what became known as the McLibel trial - the longest in British history.
ARTICLE 19 says the judgment establishes two important principles concerning libel - that legal aid should be made available in complex cases and that the awarding of damages should be reasonable. While European countries are not bound by the ruling, they should re-examine their laws to make sure they conform to the principles of the ECHR ruling, the group says.
Visit:
- ARTICLE 19: http://tinyurl.com/3peru- Text of the ECHR Ruling: http://tinyurl.com/bykb2- The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/food/Story/0,,1415371,00.html- McSpotlight: http://www.mcspotlight.org/- The Libel Capital of the World: http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/61063/