The McLibel Case:

'What's Wrong With McDonald's? -

Everything they don't want you to
know'.

Presented By:

Nipun Sharma 09FT-099

Lakshey Bhalla 09FT-074
Adityaraj Jaju 09FT-065
Nipun Kaicker 09FT-098
Siddhartha Johri 09FT-187
 Introduction
• The McLibel Trial is the infamous British court case
between McDonald's and a former postman & a
gardener from London (Helen Steel and Dave Morris).
• It ran for two and a half years and became the longest
ever English trial.

• The defendants were denied legal aid and their right

to a jury, so the whole trial was heard by a single
Judge, Mr. Justice Bell.

• He delivered his verdict in June 1997.

 What Are Defamation Cases?
• In law, defamation–also called calumny, libel
(for written words), slander (for spoken words),
and vilification–is the communication of a
statement that makes a claim, expressly stated
or implied to be factual, that may give an
individual, business, product, group, government
or nation a negative image. It is usually, but not
always a requirement that this claim be false and
that the publication is communicated to
someone other than the person defamed (the
claimant).
 Libel And Slander
• LIBEL AND SLANDER occur when a person or
entity communicates false information that
damages the reputation of another person or entity.

• Slander occurs when the false and defamatory

communication is spoken and heard

• Libel occurs when the false and defamatory

communication is written and seen
 Essentials of Defamation
A plaintiff who wishes to sue an individual or
entity for libel or slander has the burden of
proving four claims to a court:

• The plaintiff must show that the Defendant

communicated a defamatory statement.

• The plaintiff must show that the statement was

published or communicated to at least one other
person besides the plaintiff.
Essentials of Defamation(Cont.)
• The plaintiff must show that the communication
was about the plaintiff and that another party
receiving the communication could identify the
plaintiff as the subject of the defamatory
message.

• The plaintiff must show that the communication

injured the plaintiff's reputation.
 Case Overview
• McDonald's Restaurants v Morris & Steel (or
the McLibel case) was an English Lawsuit filed
by Mcdonald’s against environmental activists
Helen Steel and David Morris (often referred to as
"The McLibel Two") over a pamphlet critical of the
company.
• The original case, considered by some scholars
to be a strategic lawsuit against public
participation (SLAPP), lasted ten years, making it
the longest-running court action in English history.
The Beginning Of The Protests
• London Greenpeace campaigned on a wide range
of issues from nuclear power and Third World Debt
to anti-traffic actions and the Miners Strike. In the
mid 1980's the group began a campaign focusing
on McDonald's as a high profile organization
symbolizing everything they considered wrong with
the prevailing corporate mentality. In 1985 they
launched the International Day of Action Against
McDonald's, which has been held on October 16th
ever since. In 1986 they produced a 6-sided
factsheet called 'What's Wrong With McDonald's? -
Everything they don't want you to know'.
The Plaintiffs

Mc Donald's
 The Defendants
Helen Steele And Dave Morris
 The Issues

• Promoting Unhealthy Food

• Exploiting Workers
• Robbing The Poor
• Damaging The Environment
• Cruelty To Animals
 The Mcdonald’s Response
• In 1989, as the campaign grew and was taken up by
more and more groups around the world, McDonald's
produced their own 'McFact cards'
• McDonald's hired two firms of private investigators and
instructed them to infiltrate the group in order to find out
how they operated, who did what and, most importantly,
who was responsible for the production and distribution
of the leaflet. 
• In 1990 McDonald's served libel writs on 5 volunteers in
the group over the 'What's Wrong With McDonald's?'
leaflet. They offered a stark choice: retract the
allegations made in the leaflet and apologise, or go to
court.
Problems Faced By the Defendants
• There is no Legal Aid (public money) for libel
cases
• The judge ruled in favour of McDonald's saying
that it would be too complex for lay people to
adjudicate some of the issues, and it could be
tried more 'conveniently' without a jury. The trial
would now be heard by a single judge
• The Judge also agreed to strike out certain parts
of the Defence on the grounds that the witness
statements gathered by the defendants did not
sufficiently support those areas of the defence
 Classic Court Moments
• Classic Court Moment number 1 came on September
12th 1994 when McDonald's expert witness on cancer,
Dr Sydney Arnott, inadvertently admitted that one of the
most contentious statements made in the leaflet is a
"very reasonable thing to say".
• The greatest moment of the whole case came on
February 16th 1996 when Helen and Dave launch the
McSpotlight internet site from a laptop connected to the
internet via a mobile phone outside a McDonald's store
in Central London. The website was accessed more than
a million times in its first month, of which 2,700 are from
a computer called 'mcdonalds.com'. 
The McLibel Support Campaign
• The McLibel Support Campaign ("MSC")
was set up shortly after the writs were
served on supporters of London
Greenpeace in September 1990.
• It was established to generate solidarity
and financial backing for the McLibel
Defendants, who are not themselves
responsible for Campaign publicity.
• MSC also continues the anti-
McDonald's campaigning begun by
London Greenpeace in the 1980's, and
is supportive of, but independent from,
general, worldwide, grassroots anti-
McDonald's activities and protests.
 The Judgement
• On 19th June 1997 Mr Justice Bell took
two hours to read his summary to a
packed court room
• The Judge ruled that Helen and Dave had
libelled McDonald's, but as they had
proved many of the allegations, the
company would only be awarded half of
the claimed damages: £60,000.
 Key Points In Judgement
Judgement
• Is complicitAllegations
in starvation • Untrue/ Not Proven
• Buys from greedy rulers and elites and • Untrue/ Not Proven
practices economic imperialism
• Wastes vast quantities of grain and
• Untrue/ Not Proven
water
• Destroys rain forests with poisons and
colonial invasions • Untrue/ Not Proven
• Sells unhealthy, addictive junk food • Partially upheld
• Alters its food with artificial chemistry • Untrue/ Not Proven
 Key Points In Judgement
Allegations Judgement
• Exploits children with its advertising • Partially upheld
• Is responsible for torture and murder • Partially upheld
(of animals)
• Poisons customers with • Untrue/ Not Proven
contaminated meat
• Exploits its workers and bans unions • Partially upheld
• Hides its malfeasance
• Untrue/ Not Proven
• Recycled paper not used • Untrue/ Not Proven
 Appeals and further cases
• In September 1998, the pair sued Scotland Yard
for disclosing confidential information to
investigators hired by McDonalds and received
£10,000 and an apology for the alleged
disclosure
• An appeal began on 12 January 1999, and
lasted 23 court days, ending on 26th February.
The case was heard in Court 1 of the Court of
Appeal in the Royal Courts Of Justice. The case
was adjudicated by Lord Justices Pill & May and
Mr Justice Keane
 European Court of Human Rights
• Steel and Morris appealed to the Law Lords, arguing that
their right to legal aid had been unjustly denied. When the
Law Lords refused to accept the case, the pair filed a case
with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR),
contesting the UK government's policy that legal aid was not
available in libel cases
• On 15 February 2005, the ECHR ruled that the original case
had breached Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 10
(right to freedom of expression) of the European Convention
on Human Rights and ordered that the UK government pay
Steel and Morris £57,000 in compensation. In their ruling,
the ECHR criticised the way in which UK laws had failed to
protect the public right to criticise corporations whose
business practices affect people's lives and the environment
(which violates Article 10)
 What Can Those In The Legal
Profession Do To Advance Justice?
• We all need to help to encourage and empower ordinary
people to articulate their own needs and rights, to
understand how society is really functioning and in
whose vested interests, and to be able to take practical
steps to fight for their own interests individually and
collectively with others (including inside or against the
legal system). To speak out and write about the reality of
the legal system and how it can or can’t be used for the
public good... join and advise campaigning groups and
movements... and generally join in the struggle for a
better world - something we can all do!
THANK YOU