Human rights court finds in favour of McLibel Two

In a unanimous verdict, the seven judges - who included Nicolas Bratza of Britain - ruled that there had been a violation of Article 6 / 1 (the right to a fair hearing) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Celebrating their victory today, Ms Steel and Mr Morris went back to the spot where their battle started 20 years ago outside a branch of McDonald’s at Charing Cross in central London. A large crowd of supporters gathered as the jubilant pair set up a banner outside the branch saying, ‘Celebrate 20 years of global resistance to McWorld’.

Mr Morris, 50, who is a full-time single parent, said: “Obviously we are elated. It is a total victory in terms of the ruling. This is our third major hearing and we won hands down on both points.

“The campaign has gone from strength to strength with leaflets handed out in millions around the world.

“The Government will have to change the law but our overall objective is to encourage people to speak up for themselves. We believe in people power and we believe people need to make their decisions themselves. This encourages people to speak up and defend their own interest.”

Ms Steel, 39, now a trainee electrician, said: “It has been exhausting but at the same time it is important to defend the public’s right to criticise rich and powerful organisations. We never paid any money to McDonald’s and we’ve got absolutely no intention of paying them anything. It’s them, we think, that need to apologise to the public.”

She said that the case had been a “complete nightmare” but at the same time had provided a unique opportunity to examine the workings of a multi-national company.

A Department for Constitutional Affairs spokeswoman said: “We are studying the judgment very carefully.”

Mr Morris and Ms Steel had accused the Government of preventing them having a fair trial by denying them legal aid in a massively complex legal case. In addition, the libel laws obliged them to justify every word of anti-McDonald’s allegations contained in the leaflets they distributed.

The legal saga started when McDonald’s decided to sue Ms Steel, 39, a former gardener, and Mr Morris, 50, a former postman, who had been handing out six-page leaflets titled What’s Wrong with McDonald’s.

The leaflets, containing damaging allegations about McDonald’s, were compiled by London Greenpeace, which has no links to the Greenpeace International environmental group.

Neither Mr Steel nor Ms Morris wrote the leaflets, but found themselves embroiled in a libel action launched in 1990 and dragged on until 1997, a total of 314 days in court.

High Court judge Mr Justice Bell ruled that McDonald’s had been libelled and awarded the company £76,000 in damages, 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 £10 million and has been described as “the biggest corporate PR disaster in history”.

After the libel verdict Ms Steel and Mr Morris, both from Tottenham, north London, launched their own legal action against the Government, alleging it breached their human rights by not making legal aid available. In addition, the libel laws obliged them to justify every word of anti-McDonald’s allegations contained in the leaflets they distributed.

The Human Rights judges agreed today, saying the lack of legal aid “deprived them of the opportunity to present their case effectively before the court and contributed to an unacceptable inequality of arms with McDonald’s”. The right to a fair trial is guaranteed by the Human Rights Convention, to which the UK is a signatory.

The unequal nature of the struggle and the size of the damages award against the pair also breached their right to freedom of expression. On that point, the judges wrote: “An award of damages for defamation must bear a reasonable relationship of proportionality to the injury to reputation suffered.

“While it was true that no steps had so far been taken to enforce the damages award against either applicant, the fact remained that the substantial sums awarded against them had remained enforceable since the decision of the Court of Appeal. In those circumstances, the award of damages in the present case was disproportionate to the legitimate aim served.”

Mr Morris and Ms Steel’s legal team said multinationals should not be allowed to sue for libel at all, and that they should be open to scrutiny and criticism. But the Government argued that campaigners for social justice are subject to the same laws of libel as anyone else, even when their targets are wealthy multinational corporations.

Today’s ruling could force the Government to change libel laws.

Mark Stephens, the pair’s lawyer, said after the ruling: “We are naturally thrilled and delighted with the result. Helen and David have fought for 15 years for this.

“It is wonderful that they have now been vindicated by the European Court of Human Rights.”

The Court ordered Britain to pay damages of E20,000 (£13,742) to Mr Steel and E15,000 (£10,306) to Ms Morris. It also ordered the Government to pay court costs of E47,311 (£32,508).