CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 avril 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 63 April 2004 Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 68416/01 Decision 6.4.2004 [Section IV] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Award of damages for defamation: admissible The applicants were associated with a small organisation called London Greenpeace (unconnected with Greenpeace International). The organisation launched an anti-McDonald’s campaign in the mid-1980’s. A six-page factsheet was produced and distributed as part of that campaign. The factsheet contained allegations against McDonald’s stating, for instance, that it was responsible for starvation in the Third World or for the eviction of small farmers from their land or of tribal people from their rainforest territories. A number of allegations were related to the lack of nutritional qualities of McDonald’s food, and the health risks involved in consuming it. Finally, other allegations referred to the abusive targeting of children in their advertising, the cruel practices in the rearing and slaughter of the animals used to produce the food or the unsatisfactory working conditions in the corporation. McDonald’s brought proceedings against the applicants claiming damages for libel. The applicants denied publication of the factsheet or that the meanings in it were defamatory. They applied for legal aid but were refused it since legal aid is not available for defamation proceedings in the United Kingdom. They represented themselves throughout the trial, although they received some help from barristers and solicitors acting pro bono (it was the longest trial - 313 court days - in English legal history). At one stage of the trial the applicants were unable to pay for the daily transcripts of the proceedings. They eventually obtained copies with some delay, using donations from the public. During the trial, one of the applicants signed an affidavit related to another set of proceedings in which he mentioned that the libel action had arisen from the “leaflets we had produced”. Despite the applicant’s objection that his solicitor had by mistake omitted to include the words “allegedly produced”, the trial judge admitted the affidavit as evidence. On the basis of the affidavit, McDonald’s were permitted to amend their statement at a late stage in the trial. The applicants were held liable for publication of the factsheet, which was found to include several statements that were untrue and others which were not justified. The judge made an award for damages in favour of McDonald’s. In the appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal some of the contentious allegations were considered comment and others as being justified. The damages award was in consequence reduced. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused. Admissible under Articles 6 and 10.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes