UK Libel Law & Freedom of Expression

The European Ct. of Human Rights as issued an interesting decision that
could have an impact on UK libel laws and the Armstong libel case. The
finding that the pamphlet in this case was true, may bring this closer to US
libel law. Sandy, is there an easy way to get a copy of this decision.
Thanks.

'McLibel' pair win legal aid case
Two environmental campaigners should have been awarded legal aid in their
long-running fight against a McDonald's libel action, a court has found.
The European Court of Human Rights said the lack of such aid effectively
denied the pair the right to a fair trial.

Helen Steel and David Morris, from London, were dubbed the "McLibel Two" in
a 1990s trial, which found them guilty of libelling the company.

The pair had been handing out leaflets called "What's Wrong with
McDonald's".

The Strasbourg court's verdict is the end of a subsequent courtroom fight in
which the activists accused the UK Government of breaching their human
rights.

It ruled they did not receive a fair trial as guaranteed under the Human
Rights Convention, to which the UK is a signatory, and that their freedom of
expression was violated by the 1997 judgment.

The pair had argued the UK's libel laws, which did not allow them legal aid,
denied them freedom of speech.

The legal wrangle - the longest civil or criminal action in English legal
history - was triggered when McDonald's decided to act against former
gardener Helen Steel, 39, and former postman David Morris, 50.

Libellous leaflets

The leaflets they handed out, containing damaging allegations about
McDonald's, were compiled by London Greenpeace - which is not linked to the
Greenpeace International environmental group.

Neither Ms Steel nor Mr Morris had any hand in writing the leaflets, but
became embroiled in a libel action launched in 1990 and which ended only in
1997 - with a total of 314 days spent in court.


We believe there's an alternative where people and communities have
control over decision-making and resources
David Morris


High Court judge Mr Justice Bell ruled McDonald's had been libelled and
awarded the company £60,000 in damages, which was later reduced to £40,000
on appeal.

But he found the leaflet was true when it accused McDonald's of paying low
wages to its workers, being responsible for cruelty to some of the animals
used in its food products and exploiting children in advertising campaigns.

The case is thought to have cost the fast food giant £10m and was described
as "the biggest corporate PR disaster in history".

'Huge power'

In the Human Rights court case, Ms Steel and Mr Morris, both from Tottenham,
north London, argued that the government breached their human rights by
failing to make legal aid available and because the libel laws obliged them
to justify every word of anti-McDonald's allegations contained in the
leaflets they distributed.

Their legal team said multinational companies should not be allowed to sue
for libel because they wield huge power over people's lives and the
environment and therefore should be open to scrutiny and criticism.

But government lawyers argued that campaigners for social justice are
subject to the same laws of libel as anyone else, even when wealthy
multinational corporations are their targets.


'Corporate responsibility'

Before Tuesday's verdict, David Morris told the BBC he felt the pair had
already won.

"There's growing public concern and debate about the activities of the fast
food industry and multinational corporations in general," he said.

"We feel completely vindicated by our stance.

"We shouldn't have had to fight the longest case in legal history just to
challenge a multinational corporation and put our point of view over.

"We can see the effects of not just what McDonald's are doing but what all
multinationals are doing to our planet.

"We believe there's an alternative where people and communities have control
over decision-making and resources."

The pair's lawyer Mark Stephens said: "Helen and David will be remembered
for having raised the issue of corporate social responsibility, because when
this case first began we did not look at large global corporations and the
way they treated food products. "


--
How strange when an illusion dies, it's as though you've lost a child.--Judy
Garland

"B Lafferty" wrote in message
nk.net...
The European Ct. of Human Rights as issued an interesting decision that
could have an impact on UK libel laws and the Armstong libel case. The
finding that the pamphlet in this case was true, may bring this closer to
US libel law. Sandy, is there an easy way to get a copy of this decision.
Thanks.

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/vi...&skin=hudoc-en

Compliments,
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

*******

La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette,
il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre.
-- Einstein, A.

B Lafferty wrote:
The European Ct. of Human Rights as issued an interesting decision
that
could have an impact on UK libel laws and the Armstong libel case.
The
finding that the pamphlet in this case was true, may bring this
closer to US
libel law. Sandy, is there an easy way to get a copy of this
decision.
Thanks.

'McLibel' pair win legal aid case
Two environmental campaigners should have been awarded legal aid in
their
long-running fight against a McDonald's libel action, a court has
found.
The European Court of Human Rights said the lack of such aid
effectively
denied the pair the right to a fair trial.

Helen Steel and David Morris, from London, were dubbed the "McLibel
Two" in
a 1990s trial, which found them guilty of libelling the company.

The pair had been handing out leaflets called "What's Wrong with
McDonald's".

The Strasbourg court's verdict is the end of a subsequent courtroom
fight in
which the activists accused the UK Government of breaching their
human
rights.

It ruled they did not receive a fair trial as guaranteed under the
Human
Rights Convention, to which the UK is a signatory, and that their
freedom of
expression was violated by the 1997 judgment.

The pair had argued the UK's libel laws, which did not allow them
legal aid,
denied them freedom of speech.

The legal wrangle - the longest civil or criminal action in English
legal
history - was triggered when McDonald's decided to act against former

gardener Helen Steel, 39, and former postman David Morris, 50.

Libellous leaflets

The leaflets they handed out, containing damaging allegations about
McDonald's, were compiled by London Greenpeace - which is not linked
to the
Greenpeace International environmental group.

Neither Ms Steel nor Mr Morris had any hand in writing the leaflets,
but
became embroiled in a libel action launched in 1990 and which ended
only in
1997 - with a total of 314 days spent in court.


We believe there's an alternative where people and communities
have
control over decision-making and resources
David Morris


High Court judge Mr Justice Bell ruled McDonald's had been libelled
and
awarded the company =A360,000 in damages, which was later reduced to
=A340,000
on appeal.

But he found the leaflet was true when it accused McDonald's of
paying low
wages to its workers, being responsible for cruelty to some of the
animals
used in its food products and exploiting children in advertising
campaigns.

The case is thought to have cost the fast food giant =A310m and was
described
as "the biggest corporate PR disaster in history".

'Huge power'

In the Human Rights court case, Ms Steel and Mr Morris, both from
Tottenham,
north London, argued that the government breached their human rights
by
failing to make legal aid available and because the libel laws
obliged them
to justify every word of anti-McDonald's allegations contained in the

leaflets they distributed.

Their legal team said multinational companies should not be allowed
to sue
for libel because they wield huge power over people's lives and the
environment and therefore should be open to scrutiny and criticism.

But government lawyers argued that campaigners for social justice are

subject to the same laws of libel as anyone else, even when wealthy
multinational corporations are their targets.


'Corporate responsibility'

Before Tuesday's verdict, David Morris told the BBC he felt the pair
had
already won.

"There's growing public concern and debate about the activities of
the fast
food industry and multinational corporations in general," he said.

"We feel completely vindicated by our stance.

"We shouldn't have had to fight the longest case in legal history
just to
challenge a multinational corporation and put our point of view over.

"We can see the effects of not just what McDonald's are doing but
what all
multinationals are doing to our planet.

"We believe there's an alternative where people and communities have
control
over decision-making and resources."

The pair's lawyer Mark Stephens said: "Helen and David will be
remembered
for having raised the issue of corporate social responsibility,
because when
this case first began we did not look at large global corporations
and the
way they treated food products. "


--
How strange when an illusion dies, it's as though you've lost a
child.--Judy
Garland

So much for British sovereignity and the laws it's people passed.
Bill C

"Bill C" a écrit dans le message de :
oups.com...
So much for British sovereignity and the laws it's people passed.
Bill C

They also chose, consciously, to be part of the EU. That is their
situation, their problem, and the natural result of such choices. Frankly,
they seem all the less European, as time goes on, the argument against the
Euro intensifies, and the alliance with the USA hardens. They remain free
to leave, as does any country which is a member. But if they want the good
stuff they perceive is in the union, they have to live with a diminution of
their sovereignty. This is just too simple. And the issue of laws passed
is irrelevant. Creative judges have devined law from the start there, and
can not, individually, overcome the juridprudence that governs.

Seems that there were states of the USA which popularly chose to ignore the
constitution and offend general American jurisprudence. And they lost, too.

--
Bonne route,

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

"Bill C" wrote in message
oups.com...

So much for British sovereignity and the laws it's people passed.
Bill C

By signing a Treaty (Convention) a sovereign nation gives up some of its
soverignty. That is the case with all nations and treaties. In the case of
the United States, treaties, are on the same level of authority as the
Constitution itself. See US Constitution, Article VI, Paragraph 2:


"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and
the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Entering into treaties is very serious stuff as a measure of sovereignty is
always given up to obtain a benefit or perceived benefit.

Many thanks.

"Sandy" wrote in message
...
"B Lafferty" wrote in message
nk.net...
The European Ct. of Human Rights as issued an interesting decision that
could have an impact on UK libel laws and the Armstong libel case. The
finding that the pamphlet in this case was true, may bring this closer to
US libel law. Sandy, is there an easy way to get a copy of this
decision. Thanks.

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/vi...&skin=hudoc-en

Compliments,
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

*******

La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette,
il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre.
-- Einstein, A.

Sandy wrote:
"Bill C" a =E9crit dans le message de :
oups.com...
So much for British sovereignity and the laws it's people passed.
Bill C

They also chose, consciously, to be part of the EU. That is their
situation, their problem, and the natural result of such choices.
Frankly,
they seem all the less European, as time goes on, the argument
against the
Euro intensifies, and the alliance with the USA hardens. They remain
free
to leave, as does any country which is a member. But if they want
the good
stuff they perceive is in the union, they have to live with a
diminution of
their sovereignty. This is just too simple. And the issue of laws
passed
is irrelevant. Creative judges have devined law from the start
there, and
can not, individually, overcome the juridprudence that governs.

Seems that there were states of the USA which popularly chose to
ignore the
constitution and offend general American jurisprudence. And they
lost, too.

--
Bonne route,

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

Nicely said. I knew the information, but I really don't see it as
being a good thing as the EU continues to expand. My impression is that
France has vigorously tried to limit the powers of the new states
coming into the EU so as to retain control as much as possible and
avoid having things done France views as negative towards them. There
is also the matter of the French and german budgets being in violation
of EU laws that have gotten a wink because they are, in large part, the
controllong interests. No sign of the laws being applied equally there.
Then there's the Turkish question.
An awful lot of people here want the US to throw ourselves whole
heartedly into the internaltional political community and surrender our
rights also.
I have the same problem with the UN. There are way too many countries
who have no respect for anyone's rights or laws, that hate western
values, both Euro and American, that are in positions where they are
able to oppose basic western views. When people like Libya and
Indonesia chair the UN Human Rights Commission you really have to
wonder if international equal rights is a good thing.
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news/press/15326.shtml
I wish Europe luck, but have real fears for the results. Joschka
Fischer is still Germany's most popular politician in spite of his
history and continual gaffes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4264793.stm
We got through it, after one of the worlds more brutal wars, mostly,
kinda sorta. I hope you do better, but as the upheaval in the
Netherlands over Islamic fundamentalism shows, it's not going to be
easy. Germany is still struggling mightily to incorporate the former
East Germany into the country. The different realities they lived in
for 40 years have really made this difficult from just about every
facet of life. They are effectively seperate cultures.
Looking at the polling numbers for the EU constitution there is
definitely some real question about it. Unfortunately it seems to be
broken down by country, rather than a uniform level across the board.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3954327.stm
This is going to make it really tough for some countries domestically
and couls very well cause states to come in and out depending on
domestic politics which would make things even more unstable. I'm not
sure that Europe is homogenous enough yet to make this work. There are
serious "have" nations who are going to protect their status at the
expense of the "have nots" that's already occuring.
All I can say is good luck. Personally I'm much too nationalist,
libertarian, and isolationist to support these things, but that's just
me. The best government is the least government, and the most local.
Bill C

Yeah, I think the Armstrong case is definitely going to be overturned
now. The newspaper Armstrong sued couldn't afford its own attorneys (?)

I don't quite understand the correlation to the Armstrong case youa re
insinuating.

Magilla

B Lafferty wrote:
The European Ct. of Human Rights as issued an interesting decision that
could have an impact on UK libel laws and the Armstong libel case. The
finding that the pamphlet in this case was true, may bring this closer to US
libel law. Sandy, is there an easy way to get a copy of this decision.
Thanks.

'McLibel' pair win legal aid case
Two environmental campaigners should have been awarded legal aid in their
long-running fight against a McDonald's libel action, a court has found.
The European Court of Human Rights said the lack of such aid effectively
denied the pair the right to a fair trial.

Helen Steel and David Morris, from London, were dubbed the "McLibel Two" in
a 1990s trial, which found them guilty of libelling the company.

The pair had been handing out leaflets called "What's Wrong with
McDonald's".

The Strasbourg court's verdict is the end of a subsequent courtroom fight in
which the activists accused the UK Government of breaching their human
rights.

It ruled they did not receive a fair trial as guaranteed under the Human
Rights Convention, to which the UK is a signatory, and that their freedom of
expression was violated by the 1997 judgment.

The pair had argued the UK's libel laws, which did not allow them legal aid,
denied them freedom of speech.

The legal wrangle - the longest civil or criminal action in English legal
history - was triggered when McDonald's decided to act against former
gardener Helen Steel, 39, and former postman David Morris, 50.

Libellous leaflets

The leaflets they handed out, containing damaging allegations about
McDonald's, were compiled by London Greenpeace - which is not linked to the
Greenpeace International environmental group.

Neither Ms Steel nor Mr Morris had any hand in writing the leaflets, but
became embroiled in a libel action launched in 1990 and which ended only in
1997 - with a total of 314 days spent in court.


We believe there's an alternative where people and communities have
control over decision-making and resources
David Morris


High Court judge Mr Justice Bell ruled McDonald's had been libelled and
awarded the company £60,000 in damages, which was later reduced to £40,000
on appeal.

But he found the leaflet was true when it accused McDonald's of paying low
wages to its workers, being responsible for cruelty to some of the animals
used in its food products and exploiting children in advertising campaigns.

The case is thought to have cost the fast food giant £10m and was described
as "the biggest corporate PR disaster in history".

'Huge power'

In the Human Rights court case, Ms Steel and Mr Morris, both from Tottenham,
north London, argued that the government breached their human rights by
failing to make legal aid available and because the libel laws obliged them
to justify every word of anti-McDonald's allegations contained in the
leaflets they distributed.

Their legal team said multinational companies should not be allowed to sue
for libel because they wield huge power over people's lives and the
environment and therefore should be open to scrutiny and criticism.

But government lawyers argued that campaigners for social justice are
subject to the same laws of libel as anyone else, even when wealthy
multinational corporations are their targets.


'Corporate responsibility'

Before Tuesday's verdict, David Morris told the BBC he felt the pair had
already won.

"There's growing public concern and debate about the activities of the fast
food industry and multinational corporations in general," he said.

"We feel completely vindicated by our stance.

"We shouldn't have had to fight the longest case in legal history just to
challenge a multinational corporation and put our point of view over.

"We can see the effects of not just what McDonald's are doing but what all
multinationals are doing to our planet.

"We believe there's an alternative where people and communities have control
over decision-making and resources."

The pair's lawyer Mark Stephens said: "Helen and David will be remembered
for having raised the issue of corporate social responsibility, because when
this case first began we did not look at large global corporations and the
way they treated food products. "

"MagillaGorilla" wrote in message
...
Yeah, I think the Armstrong case is definitely going to be overturned now.
The newspaper Armstrong sued couldn't afford its own attorneys (?)

I don't quite understand the correlation to the Armstrong case youa re
insinuating.

I haven read the decision yet--tonight after my sick kid is in bed. The
news reports mentioned freedom of expression rights and truth as possible
defenses. IIRC, UK libel law is amongst the most restrictive of those. If
the EU Ct. has eroded part of that UK law, it would make for a potential
impact on Armstrong's case. I'll also have to take a look at Blackstone and
review the development of British libel law. I suspect it developed as it
did to help protect the ruling class from too much unwanted press criticism.

"Bill C" a écrit dans le message de :
oups.com...

(not really relevant to the issue originally presented of British
sovereignty in deciding the applicable law of a particular issue)

Sorry, Bill, but if the UK wants out, there are enough folks who could not
care less, with 400 million remaining. (and another 80 million to come...)

Norway has not joined, and it is not a rogue state by our standards. Nor
has Switzerland, at least not yet.

Yes, the French and German governments are trying to run the show. So what.
You prefer, perhaps, Slovakia being in charge ?

And, the proposed constitution is indeed experiencing solid opposition.

And, no, Europe is neither Nirvana nor Utopia. So what.

The UK gets lots for what it gives up. They can choose to change. Their
problem, not yours in the USA. Remember that the world opinion put the US
on the top of the list for countries which are global threats to
international peace.
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

*******

La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette,
il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre.
-- Einstein, A.