McLibel Two Win Legal Aid Case

The McLibel Two should have been given legal aid by the British government to defend themselves against a libel action by the food giant McDonald's, the European court of human rights ruled today.

The ruling is a huge victory for the so-called McLibel Two, David Morris and Helen Steel, and a pleasing end for them to the 15-year McLibel saga. The ruling is likely to be warmly welcomed by other social campaigners and groups.

The McLibel Two lost a libel case against McDonald's in 1997, in which the penniless environmental activists represented themselves against the firm's expensive lawyers. In the aftermath of that case, they brought a second case to the European court of human rights in Strasbourg against the UK government, arguing that English libel law and the lack of legal aid for defendants of defamation cases had forced them to represent themselves.

Today the court upheld their argument, made at a hearing in Strasbourg in September last year, that having to represent themselves denied them the right to free speech and a fair hearing, breaching the European convention on human rights. The pair's lawyer at the two-hour hearing - for which they did have legal aid - said the 1994-1997 David and Goliath struggle of the libel case was "patently unfair" and there was a stark inequality between the two sides.

The human rights judges agreed today, saying the lack of legal aid effectively denied the pair the right to a fair trial as guaranteed by the Human Rights Convention, to which the UK is a signatory, and also breached their right to freedom of expression.

At the conclusion of the libel hearing, which at 313 days was the longest court case in English legal history, the McLibel Two were ordered to pay McDonald's £40,000 for handing out leaflets attacking the company's commercial and employment practices. The pair have never paid the damages.

Mr Morris, speaking ahead of the ruling, said today he and Ms Steel felt completely vindicated. Mr Morris told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: "There's growing public concern and debate about the activities of the fast food industry and multinational corporations in general. We feel completely vindicated by our stance."

The leaflet, containing damaging allegations about McDonald's, was compiled not by Mr Morris or Ms Steel but by London Greenpeace, which has no link to the Greenpeace International environmental group.

The high court found the leaflet was true when it accused McDonald's of paying low wages to its workers, being responsible for cruelty to some of the animals used in its food products and exploiting children in advertising campaigns. However, the court ruled the company had been libelled because other aspects of the material were defamatory.

The case is thought to have cost the fast food giant £10m and has been described as "the biggest corporate PR disaster in history".

Mr Morris said he still had concerns about McDonald's. He said: "I don't think they can change because they are an institution that exists to make profits and to increase their power. We can see the effects of not just what McDonald's are doing but what all multinationals are doing to our planet. We believe there's an alternative where people and communities have control over decision-making and resources."