The 15-year-long “McLibel” case came to an end yesterday. Two anti-McDonald’s protesters won their fight in the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled that they did not recieve a fair trial in the UK. They were not provided with legal aid to assist them in their defense against libel charges brought by McDonald’s (thus the ruling was against the UK government rather than McDonald’s itself; Mickey D’s won the original libel suit in 1995). I think the Independent is right in calling the original suit, over a leaflet accusing McDonald’s of bad labor practices and worse food “one of the biggest own goals in the annals of corporate public relations.” Seriously, they should have just let that slide.
Slightly OT: damn, y’all have really got some supra-national organizations over there in Yurp, dontcha? It’s like faceless bureaucrats in Strasbourg are telling everybody what to do, or something. Voting for some incompetent Tories would probably straighten that right out; you might want to look into it.
{ 27 comments }
flute 02.16.05 at 5:05 am
And save the pound and bring in that floating tax day public holiday to boot. I think the tories will be tackling the labour majority one seat at a time (per election) with ideas like that. Is McBollocks a trademark?
McDuff 02.16.05 at 5:51 am
This is more good news for the state of our Libel laws than it is for the fight between Greenpeace and McDonalds, a race in which I have no great love for either of the horses.
test 02.16.05 at 6:20 am
La di da hjkkll
taylor 02.16.05 at 6:28 am
Count me among the fans of Helen Steel and Dave Morris. Their courageous fight against McDonald’s, against great odds, has not only dealt a blow to the UK’s libel laws, but has shed light on the dark practices of the fast-food industry. It should be noted that although McDonald’s was awarded damages in 1997, the judge ruled that the corporation exploited children in its advertising, exploited its workers, and was responsible for cruelty to animals. The McLibel trial may be over, but the struggle goes on. For more details, check out McSpotlight at:
http://www.mcspotlight.org/
JR 02.16.05 at 6:47 am
Is there a link anywhere to the opinion? I can’t find one. As an American lawyer, I find the notion that there is a fundamental human right to public funds for the defense of a civil action deeply weird. (Somewhere you have to draw the line between “fundamental human rights” and ordinary rights granted by statute- otherwise everything becomes the province of the judges on the human rights court and there’s no need for a legislature at all.) On the other hand, I find English libel law also deeply weird. I’d like to see what the Euro’s actually said.
Dave F 02.16.05 at 8:33 am
At the time the UK strictly excluded civil action parties from legal aid. I believe that curb has since been dropped. I can see the sense in it: who knows what friviolous or self-serving actions might be brought if legal assistance from the public purse is available.
As I recall, the McDonald’s libel defendants lacked the basic protection that their allegations were truthful. They did not bother to check these claims in the pamphlets they were distributing. I don’t see why anyone has any sympathy with such woolly-mindedness.
Just confirms my belief that a “human rights” society is not a just society.
bad Jim 02.16.05 at 8:43 am
This is only on topic to the extent that it deals with British libel laws, but it appears that Yusuf Islam, the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens, got some satisfaction from a couple of papers that said that it was right that he be denied entry to the U.S.A. (from TalkLeft)
When I saw Super Size Me at a theater near UCI, one group took their seats bearing fragrant bags of burgers and drinks in hand from the adjacent Jack in the Box. Hard to say whether this was ironic distancing, denial, or merely hunger economically dispatched.
belle waring 02.16.05 at 8:52 am
mmmmm, Jack in the Box.
Gareth Wilson 02.16.05 at 9:07 am
I remember an radio interview with Helen Steel where she explained that she was opposed to all companies that made a profit. So just the fact that a Big Mac costs more than the ingredients and labour was enough to get her goat, never mind nutrition or the environment. Although you have to wonder why she started with McDonald’s. Surely there were other profit-making business that would be easier to intimidate.
Scott Martens 02.16.05 at 9:21 am
Ugh, Jack in the Box. (We used to call it Barf in a Bag.)
The ECHR ruling is available from here. It’s in MS Word format.
Scott Martens 02.16.05 at 9:38 am
I should also note: The McLibel case was an instance of McDonald’s suing individuals, who in turn requested legal aid. This is not a case where someone asked for legal aid in order to sue a corporation. Thus, contra Dave, the notion that this judgement will lead to legal aid being used in the pursuit of frivolous civil suits is unfounded. The ECHR ruled that the defendants were entitled to legal aid in order to defend themselves, and that the trial was not fair because of this disparity in resources between the plaintiff and the defendant. The UK argued that since the McLibel defendants seem to have done a pretty good job of defending themselves with the help of pro bono legal assistance and using their own resources, that the trial was fair. (At least, this is what drops out of a quick scan of the judgement.)
It strikes me as reasonable that civil defendants ought to have the right to legal aid in order to ensure that they are adequately able to defned themselves in court. Otherwise, it is questionable whether the trial was fair. To deny the same aid to plaintiffs seems fair enough as a way of preventing frivolous use of public legal aid.
The judgement quite specifically says that McDonanld’s has the right to pursue defamation cases, even under the UK’s libel system where the burden of proof falls on the defendant, but that since the UK does not place any burden on plaintiffs to show financial loss, and that in this case the large financial burden placed on the McLibel defendants by the judgement against them makes the unequal access to legal resources a significant human rights issue.
I think that’s not an unreasonable decision, and that given what is at stake in civil proceedings between such unequal opponents, this judgement seems reasonably well founded. One could argue it by analogy with the right to legal council in a criminal case. If the adversaries in a civil case are grossly unequal, the system isn’t really fair.
Chris Williams 02.16.05 at 10:04 am
Count me in as a big fan of Dave and Helen – as much for what have done and are doing on all manner of other issues in addition to the McD’s case.
But a brief point of information: London Greenpeace has zilch to do with ‘Greenpeace’. Indeed, Greenpeace have, I think, tried to stop LG using the name in the past, without success, owing to the fact that LG got there first.
Darren 02.16.05 at 10:48 am
“As an American lawyer, I find the notion that there is a fundamental human right to public funds for the defense of a civil action deeply weird.”
One of the inequities of the manner in which employment law is conducted in the uk is the disparity between the manner in which an employee and employer are treated. Generally, employees tend to get legal aid (state hand-out) to attack the employer (unfair dismisal case etc ..) but employers don’t get any legal aid (state hand-out) to defend themselves. This results in the huge disparity of the state (via the ex-employee) attacking the individual (in the form of the employer). The resources that each command for attack and defence are massively disproportionate resulting in a huge loss of justice being found within uk employment law.
Andrew Boucher 02.16.05 at 12:07 pm
” and that the trial was not fair because of this disparity in resources between the plaintiff and the defendant…”
So the UK is now obligated to spend nearly as much money as McDonald’s is willing to spend ?
john b 02.16.05 at 12:16 pm
This results in the huge disparity of the state (via the ex-employee) attacking the individual (in the form of the employer). The resources that each command for attack and defence are massively disproportionate resulting in a huge loss of justice being found within uk employment law.
Yes, UK employment law: notorious for favouring the worker. Companies: notorious for not having any money.
For God’s sake, where do you find these mentalists?
Darren 02.16.05 at 12:31 pm
“Yes, UK employment law: notorious for favouring the worker. Companies: notorious for not having any money.”
err … like Sally’s Hair salon has got the same legal budget as McDonald’s. Yet both are treated the same by the state with regard to legal aid in terms of employment law etc …
If that is how you see the world I don’t suppose that I can convince you otherwise.
Andrew Boucher 02.16.05 at 12:41 pm
“So the UK is now obligated to spend nearly as much money as McDonald’s is willing to spend ?”
Let me add that what bothers me about this, is that the money spent on lawyers will only increase. I would prefer something more like: (a) a restriction on how much McDonald’s can spend when suing private citizens; or (b) the judge or jury taking into account the different level of resources, in determining their judgment.
Scott Martens 02.16.05 at 1:37 pm
Andrew, The ECHR has certainly not required parity of legal resources, but it has rightly noted that the discrepancy between the resources of McDonald’s and the resources of defendants who have to defend themselves because they have been refused aid is enough to constitute a lack of fairness.
I note that few public defenders offices have the same resources available to prosecutors, and yet the right to a lawyer paid by the state is guaranteed in criminal cases as a matter of basic rights. I doubt the legal aid the ECHR says the UK should have provided would have come to anywhere near as much as McDonald’s legal bills. The court decided that the discrepancy between nothing and a whole hell of a lot is too much; it is likely that the difference between something and a whole hell of a lot would not necessarily produce the same decision.
Tom T. 02.16.05 at 1:49 pm
It’s also not a fair result, though, if the corporate plaintiff successfully proves its civil case and substantial damages, but then cannot collect a judgment because the individual defendant lacks any assets. Perhaps the UK should also establish a fund to pay the civil judgments of indigent defendants.
reuben 02.16.05 at 2:34 pm
Darren
I would be interested in seeing examples of this “huge loss of justice being found within uk employment law”. The way you describe it, it sounds like a truly unfair system. At the same time, though, your choice of words seems a bit loaded (individuals “attack” rather than “sue” or some similiar term; companies “defend” instead of, eg, “fight back”). So examples would be great.
Cheers
Anderson 02.16.05 at 3:57 pm
Note that the ruling in effect penalizes McD’s for its attorney fees in the 1st trial—god knows those must’ve been over $1 million, if I heard right that the *trial* alone went about a year.
Think what you will of McD’s, but that’s a pretty raw result for an outcome that wasn’t their fault (legally speaking). Should the government have to reimburse McD’s its bill from the 1st trial?
me 02.16.05 at 9:06 pm
I think there’s some nonsense being talked here.
I can’t see why the taxpayer should have to contribute money to Person A defence if Person B decides to sue them in a civil action. This is a recipe for huge amounts of public money to be thrown away. I also can’t see why the taxplayer should pay compensation to Person B if he wins, but Person A lacks the means to pay. It’s not as if the taxpayer has done anything wrong.
“It’s also not a fair result, though, if the corporate plaintiff successfully proves its civil case and substantial damages, but then cannot collect a judgment because the individual defendant lacks any assets.”
Why isn’t it fair? The whole basis of the limited liability corporation is that if the boot were on the other foot the individual member of the public wouldn’t be able to collect damages.
“As I recall, the McDonald’s libel defendants lacked the basic protection that their allegations were truthful. They did not bother to check these claims in the pamphlets they were distributing. I don’t see why anyone has any sympathy with such woolly-mindedness.”
People should be able to talk crap without being sued for it. Are you really suggesting that people shouldn’t be able to distribute books, for example, without bothering to check the claims in the material they are distributing? That’s obviously mad.
I’m all for companies not having the right to bring libel actions (in the same way that public bodies can’t). Altering the standard of proof – so that the person being sued doesn’t have to prove their claims are correct, but the person doing the suing has to prove the claims are incorrect – would be a good start.
Darren 02.16.05 at 9:47 pm
Reuben
“I would be interested in seeing examples” if you do a search on google news for unfair dismissal you may get cases that have gone to tribunal. My point is that generally the ex-employee gets legal aid while the ex-employer gets nothing. The result is that the employers are advised by their lawyers not to take the case to court: even though the employer has done nothing wrong – these cases don’t appear on google news and so it is difficult to point to examples.
Bishop Hill 02.16.05 at 10:05 pm
Reuben
One member of staff at the last company I worked in formally handed in their resignation and then two weeks later sued the company for unfair dismissal. The employee was, of course, funded by legal aid, while the company was clocking up lawyers’ fees at a frightening rate. This led the company to attempt an out of court settlement, as this will almost always be cheaper than going to tribunal, even if you are certain to win, as we were in this case.
In this particular instance the employee was ill-advised, and insisted on going to tribunal. The case was thrown out pretty quickly. This didn’t help the company though because costs are almost never awarded against the employee.
This is a tax on honest employees in favour of dishonest ones and lawyers.
Anderson 02.16.05 at 11:00 pm
“McDonald’s spent an estimated £10 million on the trial,” says the NYT.
Now, that may well include all their pretrial legal fees, so that a lot of that wouldn’t have to be repeated. But still. A “new trial” turns out to be a huge fine on McDonald’s. Who better, sure, but it’s the principle of the thing.
David Tiley 02.17.05 at 4:05 am
If we are disturbed about Maccas not suffering as a consequence of this, then clearly the British taxpayer should construct a huge reparations fund. It would pay for all the advertising and public relations the company will need to undo its loss of reputation consequent on deciding to bash a couple of indigents with some pamphlets on a street corner, using the full majesty of the law.
They did bring it on themselves, you know.
Darren 02.17.05 at 9:15 am
Reuben/Bishop Hill
The case described by Bishop Hill is just one of thousands that never get into the headlines nor reach google news. A look at the sort of stories that are found in google news show that the employers who go to court are usually public bodies – NHS/police/local councils etc … rather than private companies. The difference is between ‘other people’s money’ and one’s own money.
Another aspect of the stories that do reach the newspapers/google news is that they depend upon some salicious nonsense aspect of a case. A case on google news was about someone using company time and property for their own amusement; in short, theft. However, the story only got to google news because the alleged thief was a lesbian e-mailing her lover … all totally irrelevant but the news report could titilate it’s readers with details of the emails.
Comments on this entry are closed.