Press Release 29th October, 1996 McLIBEL TRIAL BREAKS ALL BRITISH LEGAL RECORDS

McLibel Support Campaign c/o 5 Caledonian Road London N1 9DX, UK Tel/Fax +44-(0)171 713 1269

On Fri 1st, Mon 4th or Tues 5th November (Day 292 of the trial)*, the McLibel Trial will become the longest trial of any kind in British history.

The longest British trial until now is the Tichborne personation case which lasted 291 days, ending in 1874 (see Guinness Book of Records, 1987 p.212). (The record-holding Tichborne case actually comprised two trials, one civil lasting 103 days, and one criminal lasting 188 days).

One or both of the McLibel Defendants - Helen Steel (31) & Dave Morris (42) - will be present outside the main entrance of the High Court from 9.30am on Day 292.

The main reason that the case is taking so long is because McDonald's is alleging that every criticism in the Factsheet is libellous. Those criticisms are common sense views on matters of great public interest. Defending such views has made the case very wide-ranging and has resulted in evidence being heard from around 180 witnesses. Often, McDonald's is forcing Steel & Morris to prove the obvious - for example, that much of its packaging ends up as litter, that diet is linked to ill-health, and that McDonald's pays low wages to its workers.

Editors' Note: * Please ring the McLibel office on the above number for confirmation of the date.

The McLibel Trial, between the $30 billion a year McDonald's Corporation and two supporters of London Greenpeace (Helen Steel & Dave Morris), began on 28th June 1994 and is now set to run to the end of 1996. It is already by far the longest civil case in British history (see the latest Guinness Book of Records, p212, for details). It is also almost three times as long as any previous UK libel trial (the previous longest being a mere 101 days!).

McDonald's are suing Steel & Morris for alleged libel over a 6-sided factsheet produced by London Greenpeace, entitled "What's Wrong With McDonald's?". This leaflet (and later versions) has now possibly become the most widely known and distributed protest leaflet in history. Over 2 million leaflets have been handed out to the public in the UK alone since the action was started and thousands of people have pledged to continue circulating the leaflets whatever the verdict. Every phrase in the current "What's Wrong With McDonald's?" leaflet has been fully referenced to documentary evidence and oral testimony in the McLibel Trial, mostly from McDonald's own sources. (The Referenced Leaflet is available from the McLibel Campaign).

The Defendants, were denied their right to a jury trial and, with no right to Legal Aid, are forced to conduct their own defence against McDonald's team of top libel lawyers. The denial of a jury 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".

All the evidence in the case was completed in July and the Closing Speeches, which are expected to last several weeks, began on 21st October.

Steel & Morris are going first, followed by Richard Rampton QC for McDonald's. The Defendants dealt on the first day with the unfairness and oppressiveness of UK libel laws and their use as censorship, and then spent 4 days analysing and summing up the considerable evidence of McDonald's responsibility for deforestation in Central and Latin America.

Mike Mansfield, a leading UK QC, stated last month: "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."

The issues in the case, on which 180 witnesses have given evidence, and which are being summarised in the Closing Speeches, are as follows:

The connection between multinational companies like McDonald's, cash crops and starvation in the third world. The responsibility of corporations such as McDonald's for damage to the environment, including destruction of rainforests. The wasteful and harmful effects of the mountains of packaging used by McDonald's and other companies. 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. McDonald's exploitation of children by its use of advertisements and gimmicks to sell unhealthy products. The barbaric way that animals are reared and slaughtered to supply products for McDonald's. 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.

The Defendants believe that critics of the fast food giant have been vindicated by the evidence in the case, particularly by admissions made by McDonald's executives and paid consultants in the witness box under cross-examination. Here are some brief highlights from the trial, which are being referred to in the Closing Speeches:

McDonald's are still obtaining beef for their stores in Brazil from ranches on recently cleared Amazonian rainforest land (testimony of experts S. Branford, Prof S. Hecht, based on facts supplied by McDonald's suppliers in Brazil). A McDonald's internal memo (USA, 1986) was read out: "We can't really address or defend nutrition. We don't sell nutrition and people don't come to McDonald's for nutrition". The corporation's official and confidential 'Operations Manual' was read out: "Ronald loves McDonald's and McDonald's food. And so do children, because they love Ronald. Remember, children exert a phenomenal influence when it comes to restaurant selection. This means you should do everything you can to appeal to children's love for Ronald and McDonald's." McDonald's admitted that the polystyrene packaging collected during a nationally-publicised UK scheme "for recycling into such things as plant pots" was in fact "dumped" (testimony of Ed Oakley, Vice President of McDonald's UK). David Walker of McKey Foods (sole hamburger supplier to McDonald's UK) admitted that "as a result of the meat industry, the suffering of animals is inevitable". McDonald's have admitted that they were responsible for an outbreak of E.Coli food poisoning in Preston (UK) in 1991, in which people suffered serious kidney failure. Two dozen ex-McDonald's workers testified for the Defence about the poor pay and conditions; and trade unionists from around the world gave evidence about their experience of organising in the face of McDonald's hostility to trade unions. Five private investigators hired by McDonald's to infiltrate London Greenpeace in 1990 testified at the trial. Three admitted handing out the Factsheet complained of and therefore the Defendants are preparing to sue them for damages after the verdict, if they lose the action.

During the trial, the exhausted Defendants had repeatedly requested a ruling that, in the interests of justice, the Closing Speech of McDonald's should be presented first. At a hearing on 7th Oct, the Defendants had submitted that such a ruling would enable them to hear what case they had to answer before summarising their Defence, and also would give them some further time to prepare. In their Closing Speech, Steel & Morris have the impossible task of analysing all the evidence relating to eight separate major issues, 40,000 pages of documentary evidence, and 20,000 pages of transcript testimony, as well as dealing with many complex legal arguments and submissions to the judge, Mr Justice Bell. Steel & Morris, unrepresented, have few resources and have no experience in preparing and presenting Closing Speeches. McDonald's, with their team of top libel lawyers and assistants, have had every advantage in this case, but Richard Rampton QC strongly opposed the Defendants' application, and the Judge ruled that the Defence had to go first. A Defence application on October 17th to the Court of Appeal for more time to prepare was rejected.

The court is open to members of the press and public, most days from 10.30am in Court 35, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2. Ring 0171 713 1269 for details.

1. The McLibel Trial is a mammoth legal battle between the $30 billion a year McDonald's Corporation and two supporters of London Greenpeace. Helen Steel (bar worker, 31) and Dave Morris (single parent and ex-postman, 42) between them have an annual income of approximately 7,000 pounds. McDonald's are suing Steel & Morris for alleged libel over a 6-sided factsheet produced by London Greenpeace, entitled "What's Wrong With McDonald's?", which McDonald's allege they distributed in 1989/90. [London Greenpeace, was the first Greenpeace group to be set up in Europe - back in 1971.]

2. The Trial began on 28th June 1994 and became the longest civil case in British history in December 1995. A total of approximately 180 witnesses from the UK and around the world have given evidence in court about the effects of the company's operations on the environment, on human health, on millions of farmed animals, on the Third World, and on McDonald's' own staff. They include environmental and nutritional experts, trade unionists, animal welfare experts, McDonald's employees, top executives, and five infiltrators employed by McDonald's. The Trial is set to run until the end of 1996.

3. Steel & Morris were denied their right to a jury trial and, with no right to Legal Aid, are forced to conduct their own defence against McDonald's team of top libel lawyers. The denial of a jury 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".

4. After McDonald's issued leaflets nationwide calling their critics liars, the Defendants took out a counterclaim for libel against McDonald's which is running concurrently with McDonald's libel action, leading to two separate verdicts on each of the main issues.

5. 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, and still are, clearly very worried about the way the case is going for them and the bad publicity they are receiving.

6. The case is receiving publicity worldwide. The columnist Auberon Waugh described the trial as "the best free entertainment in London". A confidential internal memo from McDonald's in Australia (leaked to and broadcast widely by the media last year) revealed the Corporation's dilemma around the world with media coverage of the trial: "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".

7. It's clear that McDonald's aim of suppressing the "What's Wrong With McDonald's?" leaflet has totally backfired. Over 2 million leaflets have been handed out to the public in the UK alone since the action was started and thousands of people have pledged to continue circulating the leaflets whatever the verdict. Protests and campaigns against McDonald's continue in over 24 countries. And now there is an internet site called 'McSpotlight', an on-line library and campaigning tool, which makes available across the globe 2,500 separate files containing everything that McDonald's don't want the public to know (http://www.mcspotlight.org/). McSpotlight has been accessed four million times since its launch in February 1996.