McLibel Press Backgrounder
(Autumn/Fall 1997)
The 'McLibel' Trial |
The Two Sides |
The Issues |
Corporate Bullies |
Refusal to be Intimidated |
Denial of a Jury |
Counterclaim |
Length |
Turning the Tables |
McD's to pull out? |
Transcripts Scandal |
Judge Condemns McD's |
McD's tried to discredit Defendants |
Who Gained What? |
Campaign growing |
McSpotlight |
PR Disaster |
Appeals |
Book & Documentaries |
The 'McLibel' Trial
"It will go down in history as the most expensive and disasterous public
relations exercise ever mounted by a multinational company" according to
Channel 4 News. It was a "£10m McBlunder" according to the Mirror, while
Mike Mansfield QC called it "the trial of the century as it concerns the
most important issues that any of us have to face living our ordinary
lives."
This was the 'McLibel' Trial, a mammoth legal battle between the
$32 billion a year McDonald's Corporation and two supporters of London
Greenpeace - Helen Steel (32) and "What's Wrong With
McDonald's? - Everything They Don't Want You To Know", which
McDonald's alleged they had distributed in 1989/90.**
The Trial began on 28th June 1994. It became the longest libel trial in
British history in March 1995, then the longest civil case in December
1995, and finally the longest trial of any kind in English history on 1st
November 1996.*** 130
witnesses from the UK and abroad gave evidence in court about the
effects of the company's operations on human health, on the environment, on
millions of farmed animals, on the Third World, and on McDonald's' own
staff. Other witnesses submitted evidence in writing. The witnesses
included environmental and nutritional experts, trade unionists, animal
welfare experts, McDonald's employees, top executives (from the UK & USA),
and five private investigators hired by McDonald's to infiltrate London
Greenpeace in 1989/91. Closing Speeches were completed in December 1996 and
the Judge's verdict (totalling 800 pages) was delivered on
19th June 1997.
* Dave Morris is an ex-postman and single parent with an 8 year old
son; Helen Steel is a former gardener and works part-time in a bar.
** In 1996 McDonald's were allowed to extend their claim for libel back
to 1987 despite the Defendants' strenuous objections that 9 years on and in
the middle of an already complicated libel action it was unfair and
impractical to expect them to be able to find and bring evidence to
adequately cover that period.
*** The trial already has an entry in the Guiness Book of Records as
the longest civil case. It is over three times as long as any previous UK
libel trial (the previous being a mere 101 days!)
The Two Sides
The McDonald's Corporation is the
largest food retail outlet in the world, with annual sales of $32 billion,
and approximately 21,000 stores in over 100 countries. McDonald's spends $2
billion worldwide on advertising and promotions every year. But behind the
slick advertising and glossy image is the reality - profiteering from
exploitation of people, animals and the environment and the creation of a
junk culture.
London Greenpeace is a
small, independent collective, active in environmental and social struggles
since the early 70's. London Greenpeace was the first Greenpeace group to
be set up in Europe - back in 1971. It is independent of Greenpeace UK. In
1985 it launched a general anti-McDonald's campaign to try to co-ordinate
and strengthen the growing worldwide opposition to the hamburger industry.
Drawing together criticisms which had been made by concerned people and
organisations around the world, it produced the Factsheet which is now the
subject of the libel action
The Issues
The areas covered in the factsheet, which became the issues in dispute at
the trial, are:
- Multinationals and Global
Trade - The connection between multinational companies like McDonald's,
cash crops and starvation in the third world.
- Environment - The
responsibility of corporations such as McDonald's for damage to the
environment, including destruction of rainforests.
- Recycling and Waste -
The wasteful and harmful effects of the mountains of packaging used by
McDonald's and other companies.
- Nutrition - McDonald's
promotion and sale of food with a low fibre, high fat, saturated fat, sodium
and sugar content, and the links between a diet of this type and the major
degenerative diseases in western society, including heart disease and
cancer.
- Advertising and
Promotions - McDonald's exploitation of children by its use of
advertisements and gimmicks to sell unhealthy products.
- Animal Welfare - The
barbaric way that animals are reared and slaughtered to supply products for
McDonald's.
- Employment - The lousy
conditions that workers in the catering industry are forced to work under,
and the low wages paid by McDonald's. McDonald's hostility towards trade
unions.
Corporate Bullies
For many years now, McDonald's tactics in the face of this criticism have
been to step up their own propaganda efforts to project a green and caring
image, and at the same time to use libel laws to bully and
intimidate their critics into silence. Among the company's critics who,
in the past, have been forced to apologise or back down are Channel 4, the BBC, The
Guardian, The Independent, the Bournemouth Advertiser, the Scottish TUC, MSF
union, the Transnationals Information Centre, the Vegetarian Society,
playwrights, and even Prince Philip.
Libel laws exist to protect the interests of the rich and powerful. The
laws and court procedures are extremely complex, and the legal costs of a
libel case are huge. McDonald's can simply threaten their critics with a
libel suit, and in most cases the critic is forced to make a public apology
rather than lose everything they possess. The burden of proof is entirely
on the defendant who has to prove every point from 'primary sources' (ie
official documents and direct witnesses). Books, films, press reports etc
are not allowed as evidence.
Refusal to be Intimidated
In September 1990, after sending private investigators to infiltrate
London Greenpeace meetings, McDonald's served libel writs on five individuals connected
to the group. McDonald's appeared to think that, given the time, expense
and legal difficulties involved in defending a libel action, the five would
apologise. The five Defendants were advised that since there is no legal
aid to fight libel cases, their chances of successfully fighting the
case, or even getting as far as the trial itself, were virtually nil. Faced
with this, three of the defendants reluctantly decided to apologise and so
avoid any costs.
Despite the lack of legal aid, Helen Steel and Dave Morris decided to fight
the case as litigants in person, and with other campaigners decided they
were not going to bow to McDonald's intimidation. They believed that free speech itself was on trial
in the McLibel case - the right of individuals to voice criticisms of
powerful business interests.
Representing themselves involved not only mastering court procedures and
legal jargon, and speaking in court, but also organising witnesses and
approximately 60,000 pages of documents and transcripts, and getting to
grips with a welter of scientific and technical detail. Both Defendants
complained that there were papers "all over the floor" in their respective
flats. McDonald's employed the solicitors Barlow Lyde & Gilbert,
together with Richard Rampton
QC, one of the country's top libel barristers. As a result, "David vs
Goliath" has become the media's favourite analogy.
The Defendants paid their expenses through donations received from the public -
they spent approximately £35,000 on legal costs over 7 years. It is
estimated that McDonald's spent at least £10 million on the case over the
same period.
Denial of a Jury
The Trial was heard by Mr Justice
Bell without a jury. McDonald's successfully argued that the then
controversial issue of a link between diet and cancer was 'too complex' to
allow its assessment by a jury. The Defendants lost their appeal on this
point in the Court of Appeal, and were refused leave to appeal by the House
of Lords. This caused Marcel Berlins, a leading legal commentator,
to remark "I cannot think of a case in which the legal cards have been so
spectacularly stacked against one party" (Guardian, 18/1/94). Now
the trial has finished, Steel and Morris will be appealing to the European
Court of Human Rights on this point and many others.
Defendants hit back with Counterclaim
After McDonald's issued press releases and 300,000 leaflets nationwide on the
eve of the trial calling their critics liars, the Defendants took out a
counterclaim for libel against McDonald's which ran concurrently with
McDonald's libel action. In the
Counterclaim, the burden of proof rested on McDonald's to prove that the
London Greenpeace leaflet was untrue.
Length of the trial
After 28 pre-trial hearings, the trial began in June 1994. "The
case has completely dominated our lives for over two years," said
Morris in 1996. "It's been a long ordeal. We've had no time for
anything else." Before the trial began, Richard Rampton QC
forecast it would last "3 to 4 weeks". Three years was the
actual length of the trial.
The main reason that the case took so long was because McDonald's alleged
that every criticism in the Factsheet was libellous. Those criticisms are
common sense views on matters of great public interest, not just directed at
McDonald's but at the food industry and multinationals in general.
Defending such views made the case very wide-ranging and resulted in
evidence being heard from around 180 witnesses. Often, McDonald's forced
Steel & Morris to prove the obvious - for example, that much of its
packaging ends up as litter, that diet is linked to ill-health, that
advertising to children gets them to pester their parents to take them to
McDonald's, and that McDonald's pays low wages to its workers.
All the evidence in the case was completed in July 1996. The parties
returned to court in October 1996 (after the Summer recess) to present their
closing speeches, which were completed at the end of December 1996. Mr
Justice Bell delivered his personal verdict on 19th June 1997, reading out
in court the official Summary of his Judgment. The Summary (running to 45
pages) and the full Judgment (approx 800 pages) are available on the
McSpotlight Internet site (www.mcspotlight.org). The McLibel Support
Campaign has produced a briefing analysing in detail the judge's full
Judgment, and the evidence in the case.********
Turning the Tables
By fighting the case, Steel & Morris turned the tables on McDonald's.
McDonald's operations were examined in minute detail in the courtcase. It
was the company, and the whole economic system, which was on trial.
McDonald's brought their big guns into the witness box - over a dozen
executives from Chicago and the UK (up to the level of President),
departmental heads, and consultants. Under lengthy cross-examination,
they were forced to make many admissions and concessions on all the issues,
and a great deal of previously secret information was unearthed. This
provided a unique and vital insight into how multinational corporations -
who dominate the world's economy - achieve and maintain their power. This,
along with the overwhelming public
support and donations they have received, has given Steel & Morris the
encouragement and strength to continue this "David vs Goliath" battle.
The columnist Auberon Waugh described the trial as "the best free
entertainment in London".
As the trial wore on, McDonald's basic case on each major issue collapsed.
So the only REAL bones of contention by the end of the trial were legal
technicalities and arcane arguments over interpretation of the exact meaning
of the text and the accompanying satirical banner headlines and cartoons in
the 1986 London Greenpeace Factsheet (which was out of print before the
writs were served in 1990).
McDonald's To Pull Out?
At the time of the first anniversary of the
Trial (June 1995), it was widely reported that McDonald's had initiated
secret settlement negotiations with Steel & Morris. They twice flew members
of their US Board of Directors to London to meet with the Defendants to seek
ways of ending the case. McDonald's were clearly very worried about the way
the case was going for them and the bad publicity they were receiving.
The Defendants' pre-conditions for allowing McDonald's to withdraw from the
case were that they give an undertaking not to sue anyone again over similar
statements to those made by London Greenpeace; that they apologise to those
people they have sued in the past for making similar criticisms; and that
they make a substantial payment to a mutually agreeable third party in lieu
of compensation to them.
Transcripts Scandal
Following the worldwide publicity that the first anniversary of the trial
received (in Summer 1995), McDonald's decided to withhold copies of the
essential daily court transcripts (of the evidence given in open court) from
Steel & Morris in an attempt to sabotage their ability to conduct their
Defence, and to deter reporting of the case here and around the world. At
the beginning of the trial, McDonald's made an arrangement for Steel &
Morris to have copies of the transcripts until the end of the trial. This
arrangement continued for 156 days but McDonald's then broke their promise.
Transcripts were needed for preparations, cross examination of witnesses and
evaluation of the evidence. "McDonald's obviously feel the case is going
so badly for them that they need to give themselves an even greater
advantage in court, and also stop the public hearing what has been said in
evidence," Steel remarked in 1995.
Steel & Morris were forced to pay the full commercial cost to the transcript
company (£350 pounds per day immediately, or £20 pounds per day after three
weeks) to obtain these essential transcripts.
McLibel Judge Condemns McDonalds' Core Business Practices
On June 19th 1997, Mr Justice Bell, in his personal verdict in the McLibel
Trial, ruled that substantial and
significant parts of the London Greenpeace Factsheet criticising the company
have been proved to be true by the evidence brought by the McLibel
Defendants. Of the other parts of the Judgment, McDonald's won on the basis
of controversial legal and semantic interpretations of the meaning of the
What's Wrong With McDonald's? factsheet. These mainly regarded McDonald's
claim that the factsheet meant that the company itself directly caused
rainforest destruction and hunger in the third world (ignoring the
factsheet's criticisms of multinationals and the food industry in general),
and that people had a very real risk of cancer, heart disease and food
poisoning from eating the company's food, even though the factsheet did not
say this. The judge astonishingly also ruled that all the comment (bar one
phrase) in the Factsheet would be treated as statements of fact which had to
be proven by primary sources of evidence.
However, the company must be devastated that, despite all the disparity and
unfairness, the Judge still found as a fact that McDonald's "exploit
children" through their advertising, that they are "culpably responsible"
for cruelty to animals, and that the company is anti-Union and pays such low
wages that it helps to depress the already low wages in the catering
industry even further. The Judge also found that McDonald's food was "high
in fat and saturated fat and animal products and sodium" and that
"advertisements, promotions and booklets have pretended to a positive
nutritional benefit which McDonald's food ..... did not match" (ie. that the
food is not nutritious and that they are therefore deceiving the public when
they promote it as such). [For more information, see the 'Verdict &
Evidence' bulletin produced by the McLibel Support Campaign.]
Judge finds McDonald's issued defamatory and 'unjustified' statements to
discredit the Defendants - but rules the company had the right to
self-defence!
Pre-trial publication by McDonald's of 300,000 leaflets and press releases
attacking criticisms of the Corporation as 'lies' had sparked a counterclaim by the Defendants for
libel. McDonald's spokesperson in the case, Mike Love, (UK Head of
Communications and a former aide to Margaret Thatcher) had even lied to MPs
George Galloway and Ken Livingstone about the case. The company was unable
to bring a single piece of evidence to substantiate its defamatory
assertions that the Defendants had deliberately circulated false information.
In fact, the judge found that McDonald's leaflets were 'defamatory',
'unjustified', contained allegations which McDonald's knew to be untrue and
that 'part of the motive....was to discredit the defendants'. But,
astonishingly, he ruled that this was legally permissible as McDonald's had
a right of self-defence to protect itself since the company was under
'attack' from Helen and Dave! He ignored Defence submissions that if any
legal right to self-defence existed, it should not apply to such a huge
company but instead to members of the public raising valid concerns about
Corporate domination of people's lives, communities and the environment.
Who Gained What?
McDonald's were claiming damages and costs, and were applying for an
injunction to prevent Steel & Morris from repeating the criticisms in the
Factsheet.
The Judge awarded £60,000 damages to be paid by the Defendants, only half of
what McDonald's had asked for, due to the number of important points the
Corporation had lost. In fact, the sum has generally been considered a
derisory award. Nonetheless, the Defendants cannot afford to pay and, more
importantly, believe that McDonald's doesn't deserve a penny and that it is
McDonald's who must be forced to pay compensation to those they have
exploited. McDonald's have said repeatedly that they are not going to
pursue the damages against Steel & Morris.
July 17th 1997, the four week deadline set by Mr Justice Bell for any final
legal applications by the parties in the action, passed without McDonald's
making any application for an injunction or costs. The Corporation has
thereby conceded a huge victory to campaigners by effectively abandoning its
legal attempts to halt the public dissemination of 'What's Wrong With
McDonald's?' leaflets, and has failed to get any award of costs (despite
spending an estimated £10 million).
Campaign Continues to Grow
McDonald's efforts to intimidate and silence its critics have completely
backfired, and have only angered the public and strengthened the
determination of campaigners here and all over the world. Over 2¸
million "What's Wrong With McDonald's" leaflets have been handed out to the publicin the
UK alone since the action was started. Protests and campaigns against McDonald's
continue in over 24 countries.
On 21st June 1997, campaigners held an International VICTORY DAY OF ACTION
and leafleted outside McDonald's stores around the world (including
Australia, Poland, USA, Canada, Malta, Belgium, Switzerland, Ireland,
Sweden, New Zealand) to demonstrate McDonald's failure to silence its
critics. Over 500 of the company's 750 UK stores were leafleted in a
display of solidarity with the McLibel Defendants and show of conviction
that all the criticisms in the "What's Wrong With McDonald's?" leaflets have
been shown to be true. The "What's Wrong With McDonald's?" leaflet
has now possibly
become the most widely known and distributed protest leaflet in history.
As the Defendants were denied a jury trial, the public are in effect the
wider jury and campaigners are committed to continuing to provide the public
with the facts they need to judge for themselves. (The Corporation, after
all, spends $2 billion every year on its global advertising and propaganda.)
A Global Week of Action against the company will take place from October
11th to 18th 1997, around UN World Food Day / World Anti-McDonald's Day on
October 16th.
'McSpotlight' - uncensored and unstoppable on the Internet
The McSpotlight Internet site (www.mcspotlight.org) contains
everything that McDonald's doesn't want the public to know (including the
full transcripts of the trial, banned material, witness statements,
scientific reports, cartoons, company documents, media reports, etc). The
site also contains campaigning materials (such as leaflets in numerous
languages), a Debating Room providing a global forum for discussion and
debate about McDonald's and all they stand for, and information on other
multinationals. McSpotlight is being accessed over one million times every
month.
PR Disaster - McDonald's Buries its Head
The case received publicity worldwide and has been described by the media as
the biggest Corporate PR disaster in history. The McDonald's Corporation
(based in Oak Brook, Illinois) is refusing to comment on the verdict,
falsely claiming that it is a "UK issue". This is despite the fact that
they were the first and leading Plaintiff in the McLibel action! They
called top US executives into the witness box to give evidence and twice
flew over other executives during the trial for secret settlement meetings
with Steel & Morris. The Corporation obviously knows the damaging nature of
the findings made against them and in the evidence as a whole throughout the
trial. Their refusal to comment is clearly an admission of a humiliating
defeat. It is a damage limitation exercise. As a 1995 confidential
internal memo leaked from McDonald's Australia had stated: "Contain it as
a UK issue". "We could worsen the controversy by adding our opinion". "We
want to keep it at arms length - not become guilty by association". "This
will not be a positive story for McDonald's Australia". The aim
is to "minimise any further negative publicity".
Legal Controversies Set To Continue
The Defendants have lodged an appeal against the parts of the Judge's
verdict which went against them and over some of the disturbing legal
aspects of the case. They are also preparing a 'third party action' against
the three McDonald's spies who testified they had distributed the London
Greenpeace factsheet whilst infiltrating London Greenpeace in 1990. The aim
is for the agents to be forced to pay an appropriate contribution towards
the £60,000 damages. Following the appeal, the Defendants intend to take
the British government to the European Court of Human Rights to overturn the
UK's unfair and oppressive libel laws - challenging the denial of Legal Aid
and the right to a jury trial, and laws stacked in favour of Plaintiffs.
They will argue that multinational corporations should no longer be allowed
to sue for libel.
Book and Documentaries
The book 'McLibel: Burger Culture on Trial' by John Vidal (published in the UK by Macmillan) is
available from bookshops in the UK, and in some other countries (including
USA).
A 3 hour TV reconstruction drama was made for UK Channel 4 and was broadcast in two parts
on Sat 17th & Sun 18th May 1997.
The exclusive documentary 'McLibel: Two World's Collide' has recently been
completed and is available for broadcast worldwide, and on video. Full
details from One Off Productions (oops@spanner.org).
"We would not like to see a repetition of such a case again - it's the
public's right to criticise the practices of multinational corporations who
dominate our lives, the world's economy and the environment. We call for
the abolition of the right of multinational corporations to be able to sue
for libel. Our aim is a society based on sharing and cooperation, where
people, animals and the environment are not seen as the means for a minority
to make their profits."
- Helen Steel & Dave Morris (The McLibel Two), 1st November 1996
Mike Mansfield, a leading UK QC, stated: "The 'McLibel' case is the
trial of the century as it concerns the most important issues that any of us
have to face living our ordinary lives. This David and Goliath battle has it
all."
"We're elated at what we and campaigners have been able to achieve. This
case was a clear attempt by McDonald's to use the English libel laws to
silence their critics. By standing up to the company's bullying, we turned
the tables on McDonald's and the company found that all its dirty laundry
was aired in public during the trial, exposing the truth behind its glossy
image. The hearings were transformed into what may have been the first ever
public tribunal on the business practices and effects of a multinational
Corporation.
All the legal cards were stacked against us - oppressive, complex and unfair
libel laws favouring
Plaintiffs, no Legal Aid, huge imbalance of resources (a $30 billion-a-year
corporation against our combined annual income of less than £7,500), and the
outrageous denial of a jury trial. Despite all of this, we won significant
and substantial parts of the Judgment relating to McDonald's core business
practices. And leaflets continue to be handed out in ever greater numbers.
As far as we're concerned, it's a complete victory for campaigners and the
public's right to criticise rich and powerful multinational corporations
which dominate our lives and communities."
- Helen Steel & Dave Morris (The McLibel Two), 18th July 1997
McLibel Support Campaign
5 Caledonian Road
London N1 9DX, UK
Tel/Fax +44-(0)171 713 1269
E-mail & Listserver: dbriars@world.std.com
The following information was supplied by the McLibel Support Campaign, who
check all material for accuracy against the official court transcripts
and/or other sources.