Thread by @docrussjackson

#THREAD

Helen Steel is a left-wing activist known for her involvement in #McLibel, that lasted 10 years, & was eventually taken to the ECHR, where Helen & David Morris won their case against the UK Govt on the grounds they'd been denied a fair trial.

Helen & David were part of London Greenpeace, a small campaigning group that existed from 1972 to 2001.

In 1986 they distributed "a few hundred copies" of the leaflet: "What's wrong with McDonald's: everything they don't want you to know", in London

mcspotlight.org/case/pretrial/…

The leaflet accused the company of paying low wages, of cruelty to animals used in its products & other malpractices. The group were not affiliated with the larger Greenpeace International organisation, which they declined to join as they saw it as too "centralised & mainstream".

In 1990, McDonald's brought libel proceedings against five London Greenpeace supporters, Paul Gravett, Andrew Clarke & Jonathan O'Farrell, as well as Steel & Morris, for distributing the sheet on the streets of London. It became the longest-running libel case in English history.

The case followed past instances in which McDonald's threatened to sue more than fifty organisations for libel, including @Channel4 & several major publications. In all such cases, the media outlets settled and apologised.

McDonald's had threatened legal action against more than 90 organisations in the UK, including the BBC, Channel 4, the Guardian, The Sun, the Scottish TUC, the New Leaf Shop, student newspapers, & a children's theatre group. Even Prince Philip received a stiff letter.

Prince Philip, then President of WWF, had recently met the President of McDonald's Canada, saying: 'So you're the people who are tearing down the Brazilian rainforests & breeding cattle' to which the reply was 'I think you're mistaken', whereupon HRH said 'Rubbish' & stormed off.

All of those threatened with legal action by McDonalds - one of the largest multinationals on earth - backed down, & many formally apologised in court.

Under English defamation law at the time, the defendant had to show that each disparaging statement made is substantively true.

Like modern libel cases, proving that a disparaging statement is substantively true can be an expensive & time-consuming process. Gravett, Clarke and O'Farrell apologised as requested by McDonald's, but Steel & Morris chose to not back down, & to defend the case.

The two were denied legal aid, as was policy for libel cases, despite having limited income. Thus, they had to represent themselves, though they received significant pro bono assistance, including from a fresh-faced Keir Starmer.

Helen & David called 180 witnesses, seeking to prove their assertions about food poisoning, unpaid overtime, misleading claims about how much McDonald's recycled, & "corporate spies sent to infiltrate the ranks of London Greenpeace".

McDonald's spent several million pounds, while Helen & David spent £30,000; this disparity in funds meant Helen & David were not able to call all the witnesses they wanted, especially those from South America who were intended to support their claims about McDonald's activities.

In its libel allegation, McDonald's asserted all claims in the pamphlet to be false. They found it difficult to support this position despite the indirectness of some of the claims. The case eventually became a media circus.

McDonald's executives entered the witness box, enabling cross-examination by the defendants. McDonald's offered to settle the case by donating a large sum of money to a charity chosen by the two, & said they'd drop the case if Helen & David agreed to "stop criticising McDonalds".

Helen & David secretly recorded the meeting, in which McDonald's said they could criticise McDonald's privately to friends, but must cease talking to the media or distributing leaflets.

In a letter to McDonald's, Helen & David said they would agree to the terms - but only if McDonald's ceased advertising their products & only recommended the restaurant privately to friends.

The case was adjudicated by Mr Justice Rodger Bell. On 19 June 1997, Bell delivered his more than 1,000-page judgment largely in favour of McDonald's, finding the claims that McDonald's was responsible for starvation & deforestation were false & libellous.

While David & Helen were found liable on several points, the judge also found some of the points in the factsheet were true.

Bell ruled that McDonald's: endangered their workers' & customers' health by "misleading advertising"; "exploit children"; were "culpably responsible" in the infliction of unnecessary cruelty to animals; & were "antipathetic" to unionisation, & paid their workers low wages!

Furthermore, although the decision awarded £60,000 to the company, McDonald's legal costs were much greater, & the defendants lacked the funds to pay it. Helen & David immediately appealed against the decision.

In September 1998, the pair sued the Metropolitan Police for disclosing confidential information to investigators hired by McDonald's and received £10,000 & an apology for the alleged disclosure.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/820786…

An appeal began on 12 January 1999, and lasted 23 court days, ending on 26 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 and May and Mr Justice Keene.

The defendants represented themselves in court, assisted by first year law student Kalvin P. Chapman. McDonald's were represented by libel lawyer Richard Rampton, & a junior barrister, Timothy Atkinson, & Ms Pattie Brinley-Codd of Barlow, Lyde & Gilbert.

Helen & David were denied a requested time extension

The judges ruled it was fair comment to say McDonald's employees worldwide "do badly in terms of pay & conditions" & true "if one eats enough McDonald's food, one's diet may well (lead to) the very real risk of heart disease".

As a result, the three Lord Justices reduced Mr Justice Bell's award of £60K damages to McDonald's by £20K. The court ruled against the argument by Helen & David that multinational corporations should no longer be able to sue for libel over public interest issues.

Helen & David once again announced their intention to appeal over these & other points to the House of Lords, & then to take the UK government to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary.

thetimes.co.uk/article/mcdona…

In response to the verdict, David Pannick said in The Times: "The #McLibel case has achieved what many lawyers thought impossible: to lower further the reputation of our law of defamation in the minds of all right thinking people."

Helen & David appealed to the Law Lords, arguing their right to legal aid had been unjustly denied. When the Law Lords refused to accept the case, the pair formally retained solicitor Mark Stephens & barrister Keir Starmer to file a case with the European Court of Human Rights.

They contested the UK government's policy that legal aid was not available in libel cases, & set out a highly detailed case for what they believed to be the oppressive & unfair nature of UK libel laws in general, & in their case in particular.

mcspotlight.org/case/trial/ver…

In September 2004, this action was heard by the ECHR. Lawyers for Helen & David argued that the lack of legal aid had breached the pair's right to freedom of expression & to a fair trial.

On 15 February 2005, the European Court of Human Rights made its ruling.

The ECHR ruled that the original case HAD breached Article 6 (right to a fair trial) & Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights & ordered that the UK government pay Helen & David £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).

The European Court of Human Rights also ruled that the trial was biased because of the defendants' comparative lack of resources & what they believed were complex & oppressive UK libel laws.

mcspotlight.org/media/press/re…

In particular the Court held: "in a democratic society even small & informal campaign groups, such as London Greenpeace, must be able to carry on their activities effectively...

...& that there exists a strong public interest in enabling such groups & 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." - ECHR ruling para.89.

"The safeguard afforded by Article 10 to journalists in relation to reporting on issues of general interest is subject to the proviso that they act in good faith in order to provide accurate & reliable information...

...in accordance with the ethics of journalism... the same principle must apply to others who engage in public debate." — ECHR judgment, para. 90.

"It is true that large public companies inevitably & knowingly lay themselves open to close scrutiny of their acts &, as in the case of the businessmen & women who manage them, the limits of acceptable criticism are wider in the case of such companies." — ECHR judgment, para. 94.

In response to the ECHR's decision, Helen & David issued the following press release:

"Having largely beaten McDonald's... we have now exposed the notoriously oppressive & unfair UK laws."

"As a result of the ruling today, the government may be forced to amend or scrap some of the existing UK laws. We hope that this will result in greater public scrutiny & criticism of powerful organisations whose practices have a detrimental effect on society & the environment."

"The #McLibel campaign has already proved that determined and widespread grass roots protests and defiance can undermine those who try to silence their critics, and also render oppressive laws unworkable."

"The continually growing opposition to McDonald's and all it stands for is a vindication of all the efforts of those around the world who have been exposing and challenging the corporation's business practices."

mcspotlight.org/media/press/re…

In the course of the UK undercover policing relationships scandal it was revealed that one of the authors of the "#McLibel leaflet" was Bob Lambert, an undercover police officer who infiltrated London Greenpeace.

John Dines, another undercover officer, was also Helen Steel's partner for two years; she was unaware of his true identity & motives. Consequently, Helen was a core participant in the #Spycops Undercover Policing Inquiry.

Helen is one of several women who were deceived into long-term relationships with undercover police officers, but is one of only two who have spoken publicly about their ordeal while using their own name.

theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/m…

Helen was one of seven women who were apologised to by the MET Police for their deception, & one of eight women to bring a legal action against the police for abuses entailed by their undercover police ops, writing about it in the book Deep Deception.

https://twitter.com/helensteel12/status/1509437394965180417?s=20&t=SJhIGRJ4GRcDfe1HIQpheA

The Defamation Act 2013 brought some changes to libel cases, which were expected to make it harder for corporations to abuse libel law.

The McLibel case also raised awareness about how defamation proceedings can harm the reputation of companies that raise them.

The #McLibel film quoted McDonald's as offering little comment on the European Court of Human Right's decision, other than to point out that it was the Government & not McDonald's who was the losing party & that "times have changed and so has McDonald's".

A feature-length documentary film, McLibel, was made about the case by Franny Armstrong and Ken Loach in 1997. An extended version was produced in 2005. As of August 2004, the producers estimate that more than 25 million people have seen the film.

In April 2022 the case was the subject for a programme in the @BBCRadio4 series, The Reunion.

bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00…

For me, the #McLibel was one of the most important legal cases in British history, inspiring a generation of activists to use their free speech to fearlessly the evils of large corporations, underregulated capitalism, & authoritarian & antidemocratic Govts like our present one.🇬🇧

Helen Steel is a hero of our troubled times.

Given her left-wing environmental activist credentials - & agree with her or not on particular issues - unlike the usual voices dominating political discussion, imho she has earned the right to be listened to.

https://twitter.com/helensteel12/status/1606198396041121792?s=20&t=mErKcFj8hBSqtZQJH3Fj7g