Forwarded message from UK: February 15, 2005 There's just been a great victory today of potentially broader significance - on two points - for the two UK campaigners, Helen Steel and David Morris (as "London Greenpeace"), who have fought a libel battle against McDonalds in the courts for 15 years - mostly without the help of lawyers and including the longest trial in English legal history of 313 days. An award of damages against both of them made by the UK courts was overturned, and the European Court awarded them instead about 80,000 euros in damages and costs (c. US $100,000)
The European Court of Human Rights decided unanimously that: (1) a violation of Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights had been violated by the failure to provide them with legal aid when they were sued by McDonalds for libel. The Court's press release says "...the denial of legal aid to the applicants had deprived them of the opportunity to present their case effectively before the court and contributed to an unacceptable inequality of arms with McDonald's." In summarising the applicants case on this aspect, the Court's judgment says: "At the time of the proceedings in question, McDonald's economic power outstripped that of many small countries (they enjoyed worldwide sales amounting to approximately USD 30 billion in 1995), whereas the first applicant was a part-time bar-worker earning a maximum of GBP 65 a week and the second applicant was an unwaged single parent. The inequality of arms could not have been greater." and (2) that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention, for the same reasons - there is so much good stuff on this - I've not been able to check the press release with the judgment yet - but here's a flavour from the press release: "The central issue which fell to be determined was whether the interference with the applicants' freedom of expression had been 'necessary in a democratic society'. The Government had contended that, as the applicants were not journalists, they should not attract the high level of protection afforded to the press under Article 10. However, in a democratic society even small and informal campaign groups, such as London Greenpeace, had to be able to carry on their activities effectively. There existed 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. "The safeguard afforded by Article 10 to journalists in relation to reporting on issues of general interest was subject to the proviso that they acted in good faith in order to provide accurate and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism, and the same principle applied to others who engaged in public debate. In a campaigning leaflet a certain degree of hyperbole and exaggeration could be tolerated, and even expected, but in the case under review the allegations had been of a very serious nature and had been presented as statements of fact rather than value judgments. The applicants, who, despite the High Court's finding to the contrary, had denied that they had been involved in producing the leaflet, had claimed that it placed an intolerable burden on campaigners such as themselves, and thus stifled public debate, to require those who merely distributed a leaflet to bear the burden of establishing the truth of every statement contained in it...... Nor should in principle the fact that the plaintiff in the present case was a large multinational company deprive it of a right to defend itself against defamatory allegations or entail that the applicants should not have been required to prove the truth of the statements made. It was true that large public companies inevitably and knowingly laid themselves open to close scrutiny of their acts and the limits of acceptable criticism are wider in the case of such companies...... .....If, however, a State decided to [allow a corporate body to sue for libel], it was essential, in order to safeguard the countervailing interests in free expression and open debate, that a measure of procedural fairness and equality of arms was provided for. The more general interest in promoting the free circulation of information and ideas about the activities of powerful commercial entities, and the possible "chilling" effect on others were also important factors to be considered in this context." ECHR press release here: http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2005/Feb/ChamberjudgmentSteel&MorrisvUnitedKingdom150205.htm 39 page judgment in a Word document available from here - main part of the judgment is from para 59 onwards: http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/portal.asp?sessionId=994095&skin=hudoc-en&action=request CASE OF STEEL AND MORRIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 68416/01) - -- Anivar Aravind //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Stolen Generation: Youth Against Softdrinks http://www.stolengeneration.port5.com/ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
