McLibel case

Last updated

McLibel case
Full case name McDonald's Corp v Steel (No.4)
Decided19 June 1997
Case history
Prior actionsMcDonald's Corporation v Steel & Morris (Trial) and 3 procedural appeals (McDonald's Corp v Steel No.1 – 3)
Subsequent actionSteel & Morris v United Kingdom
Court membership
Judges sitting Pill LJ, May LJ, Keene J
Subsequent ECHR decision
CourtEuropean Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section)
Full case name Steel & Morris v United Kingdom
Decided15 February 2005
Citationapplication no. 68416/01
Court membership
Judge sittingM. Pellonpää (President)
Keywords
Freedom of expression, libel, legal aid

McDonald's Corporation v Steel & Morris [1997] EWHC 366(QB), known as "the McLibel case", was an English lawsuit for libel filed by McDonald's Corporation against environmental activists Helen Steel and David Morris (often referred to as "The McLibel Two") over a factsheet critical of the company. Each of two hearings in English courts found some of the leaflet's contested claims to be libellous and others to be true.

Contents

The original case lasted nearly ten years which, according to the BBC, made it the longest-running libel case in English history. [1] McDonald's announced it did not plan to collect the £40,000 it was awarded by the courts. [2] Following the decision, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled in Steel & Morris v United Kingdom that the pair had been denied a fair trial, in breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to a fair trial), and their conduct should have been protected by Article 10 of the Convention, which protects the right to freedom of expression. The court awarded a judgment of £57,000 against the UK government. [3] McDonald's itself was not involved in, or a party to, this action, as applications to the ECHR are independent cases filed against the relevant state.

Franny Armstrong and Ken Loach made a documentary film, McLibel , about the case.

History

Background

"What's wrong with McDonald's: everything they don't want you to know", the cover of the leaflet at the centre of the libel case "What's wrong with McDonalds - everything they don't want you to know" leaflet cover.jpg
"What's wrong with McDonald's: everything they don't want you to know", the cover of the leaflet at the centre of the libel case

Helen Steel and David Morris were two environmental activists of London Greenpeace, a small environmental campaigning group that existed between 1972 and 2001. In 1986 they distributed "a few hundred copies" of a six-page leaflet titled "What's wrong with McDonald's: everything they don't want you to know" in Strand, London. [4] [5] The leaflet accused the company of paying low wages, cruelty to animals used in its products, damaging the environment, and other malpractices. [6] The group were not affiliated with the larger Greenpeace International organisation, which they declined to join as they saw it as too "centralised and mainstream". [7]

Libel charges

In 1990, McDonald's brought libel proceedings against five London Greenpeace supporters, Paul Gravett, Andrew Clarke and Jonathan O'Farrell, as well as Steel and Morris, for distributing the sheet on the streets of London. This case followed past instances in which McDonald's threatened to sue more than fifty organisations for libel, including Channel 4 television and several major publications. In all such cases, the media outlets settled and apologised. [8]

Under English defamation law at the time, the defendant had to show that each disparaging statement made was substantively true. This could be an expensive and time-consuming process. Gravett, Clarke and O'Farrell apologised as requested by McDonald's, but Steel and Morris chose to defend the case. [9]

The two were denied legal aid, as was policy for libel cases, despite having limited income. [10] Thus, they had to represent themselves, though they received significant pro bono assistance, including from Keir Starmer. Steel and Morris called 180 witnesses, seeking to prove their assertions about food poisoning, unpaid overtime, misleading claims about how much McDonald's recycled, and "corporate spies sent to infiltrate the ranks of London Greenpeace". [11] McDonald's spent several million pounds, while Steel and Morris spent £30,000; this disparity in funds meant Steel and Morris were not able to call all the witnesses they wanted, especially witnesses from South America who were intended to support their claims about McDonald's activities in that continent's rainforests. [12]

In its libel allegation, McDonald's asserted all claims in the pamphlet to be false. [13] 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, including Ray Cesca, entered the witness box, enabling cross-examination by the defendants. [14]

In June 1995 McDonald's offered to settle the case (which "was coming up to its [tenth] anniversary in court" [15] ) by donating a large sum of money to a charity chosen by the two. They further specified they would drop the case if Steel and Morris agreed to "stop criticising McDonald's". [15] Steel and Morris secretly recorded the meeting, in which McDonald's said the pair could criticise McDonald's privately to friends but must cease talking to the media or distributing leaflets. Steel and Morris wrote a letter in response saying they would agree to the terms if McDonald's ceased advertising its products and instead only recommended the restaurant privately to friends. [12]

Judgment

High Court

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 and deforestation were false and libellous. [16] The ruling was summarized by a 45-page paper read in court. [17] Steel and Morris were found liable on several points, but the judge also found some of the points in the factsheet were true. [12] McDonald's considered this a legal victory, though it was tempered by the judge's endorsement of some of the allegations in the sheet. Specifically, Bell ruled that McDonald's endangered the health of their workers and customers by "misleading advertising", that they "exploit children", that they were "culpably responsible" in the infliction of unnecessary cruelty to animals, and they were "antipathetic" [18] to unionisation and paid their workers low wages. [19] Furthermore, although the decision awarded £60,000 to the company, McDonald's legal costs were much greater, and the defendants lacked the funds to pay it. Steel and Morris immediately appealed against the decision. [20]

In 1998 a documentary film was made about the case, also titled McLibel. This was updated in 2005 after the verdict of the final appeal.

In September 1998, the pair sued the Metropolitan Police for disclosing confidential information to investigators hired by McDonald's and received £10,000 and an apology for the disclosure. [20]

Court of Appeal

An appeal began on 12 January 1999, and lasted 23 court days, ending on 26 February. [21] 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 (King's College London). McDonald's were represented by libel lawyer Richard Rampton, [22] and a junior barrister, Timothy Atkinson, [23] and Ms Pattie Brinley-Codd of Barlow, Lyde & Gilbert. [24] Steel and Morris filed a 63-point appeal. They had requested a time extension, but were denied. The verdict for the appeal was handed down on 31 March, in Court 1 at the Royal Courts of Justice. [25]

The judges ruled it was fair comment to say that McDonald's employees worldwide "do badly in terms of pay and conditions" [26] and true "if one eats enough McDonald's food, one's diet may well become high in fat, etc., with the very real risk of heart disease".

As a result of their further findings against the corporation, the three Lord Justices reduced Mr Justice Bell's award of £60,000 damages to McDonald's by £20,000. The court ruled against the argument by Steel and Morris that multinational corporations should no longer be able to sue for libel over public interest issues. Steel and Morris announced their intention to appeal over these and other points to the House of Lords, and then take the UK government to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary.

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." [27]

Steel and Morris appealed to the Law Lords, arguing that 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 [28] and barrister Keir Starmer to file a case with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), contesting the UK government's policy that legal aid was not available in libel cases, and setting out a highly detailed case for what they believed to be the oppressive and unfair nature of UK libel laws in general, and in their case in particular. [29] In September 2004, this action was heard by the ECHR. Lawyers for Steel and Morris argued that the lack of legal aid had breached the pair's right to freedom of expression and to a fair trial.

European Court of Human Rights

An anti-McDonald's leafleting campaign in front of the McDonald's restaurant in Leicester Square, London, during the European Social Forum season, 16 October 2004 Anti-McDonalds protest Leicester Square London 20041016.jpg
An anti-McDonald's leafleting campaign in front of the McDonald's restaurant in Leicester Square, London, during the European Social Forum season, 16 October 2004

On 15 February 2005, the European Court of Human Rights ruled [30] that the original case had breached Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights and ordered that the UK government pay Steel and Morris £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); they also ruled that the trial was biased because of the defendants' comparative lack of resources and what they believed were complex and oppressive UK libel laws.

In particular the Court held:

in a democratic society even small and informal campaign groups, such as London Greenpeace, must be able to carry on their activities effectively and that there exists a strong public interest in enabling such groups and 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 judgment, para. 89 [30]

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 and reliable information in accordance with the ethics of journalism ..., and the same principle must apply to others who engage in public debate.

— ECHR judgment, para. 90 [30]

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

— ECHR judgment, para. 94 [30]

In response to the European Court of Human Rights' decision, Steel and Morris issued the following press release:

Having largely beaten McDonald's ... we have now exposed the notoriously oppressive and 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 and criticism of powerful organisations whose practices have a detrimental effect on society and 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. [31]

Post court developments

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. [5] John Dines, another undercover officer, was Helen Steel's partner for two years; she was unaware of his true identity and motives. [32]

The Defamation Act 2013 brought some changes to libel cases, [33] which were expected to make it harder for corporations to abuse libel law. [34]

The McLibel case also raised awareness about how defamation proceedings can harm the reputation of companies that raise them, [35] similarly to the Streisand effect.

McDonald's response

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

On a website aiming to state its view on issues raised about it, McDonald's stated that the case is in the past and the issues more so, and that both sides in it have moved on (although Morris and Steel did continue related litigation). [6] [36]

Later events

Chapter 5 of Paul Lewis and Rob Evans' 2012 book Undercover: The True Story of Britain's Secret Police is titled "McSpies". In recounting the history of the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) it recounts the involvement of undercover policemen Bob Lambert and John Dines in the activities which led up to the trial. The Guardian later reported that Lambert had co-written the leaflet that was central to the libel trial. [5] Steel has stated that Dines became treasurer of London Greenpeace. [37]

Documents from the case showed that McDonald's private investigators had been receiving information from the Metropolitan Police. The Metropolitan Police were sued over this, which was settled out of court and with an apology and the Metropolitan Police undertaking not to share information from police computers with corporations. [38]

Media

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, with estimated viewing audience of 25 million. [39]

The documentary features courtroom reconstructions of the trial. It also features interviews with Eric Schlosser (author of the 2001 book Fast Food Nation ), Morgan Spurlock (writer/director of the 2004 film Super Size Me ), Keir Starmer (who provided free legal support to the McLibel defendants for many years) and Howard Lyman who appeared on The Oprah Winfrey Show about Mad Cow disease.

In April 2022 the case was the subject for a programme in the BBC Radio 4 series The Reunion . [37]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ "McLibel pair get police payout". BBC. 5 July 2000. "'McLibel' pair in fresh court bid". BBC. 7 September 2004. "McLibel: Longest case in English history". BBC. 15 February 2005.
  2. ↑ "McDonald's lets McLibel case rest". AP. 19 July 1997. Archived from the original on 6 October 2008.
  3. ↑ Press release issued by the Registrar. "Chamber Judgment Steel and Morris v. The United Kingdom" The European Court of Human Rights, 15 February 2005. Received 1 September 2008.
  4. ↑ Vidal, John (16 February 2005). "20-year fight ends with libel law in the dock". The Guardian .
  5. 1 2 3 Lewis, Paul; Rob Evans (21 June 2013). "McLibel leaflet was co-written by undercover police officer Bob Lambert". The Guardian. Retrieved 21 June 2013.
  6. 1 2 Oliver, Mark (15 February 2005). "McLibel – Mark Oliver examines the background to the longest civil or criminal case in British legal history". The Guardian.
  7. ↑ p. 388 of No Logo
  8. ↑ "Over the past 15 years, McDonald's has threatened legal action against more than 90 organisations in the U.K., including the BBC, Channel 4, the Guardian, The Sun , the Scottish TUC, the New Leaf Shop, student newspapers, and a children's theatre group. Even Prince Philip received a stiff letter. All of them backed down and many formally apologised in court." from Franny Armstrong, "Why Won't British TV Show a Film about McLibel?", 19 June 1998, The Guardian ; as quoted in No Logo.
  9. ↑ Skau, S. (2013). "McLibel". followthethings.com Accessed 16 June 2014.
  10. ↑ "For 313 days in court – the longest trial in English history – an unemployed postal worker (Morris) and a community gardener (Steel) went to war with chief executives from the largest food empire in the world." p. 389 of No Logo
  11. ↑ p. 389 of No Logo.
  12. 1 2 3 McLibel film, 1998.
  13. ↑ "Statement of Claim". Mcspotlight.org. Retrieved 13 November 2008.
  14. ↑ Vidal, john (1997). McLibel: British Culture on Trial . The New Press. pp.  11–20. ISBN   9781565844117.
  15. 1 2 p. 387 of No Logo, 1st ed.
  16. ↑ "The Court Service – Queens Bench Division – Judgment – McDonald's Corporation & McDonald's Restaurants Limited against Helen Marie Steel & David Morris". Hmcourts-service.gov.uk. Archived from the original on 5 June 2008. Retrieved 13 November 2008.
  17. ↑ "On 19 June 1997, the judge finally handed down the verdict....It felt like an eternity to most of us sitting there, as Mr Justice Rodger Bell read out his forty-five-page ruling – a summary of the actual verdict, which was over a thousand pages long. Although the judge deemed most of the factsheet's claims too hyperbolic to be acceptable (he was particularly unconvinced by its direct linking of McDonald's to "hunger in the 'Third World'"), he deemed others to be based on pure fact." pp. 389–390 of No Logo.
  18. ↑ "SUMMARY OF THE JUDGEMENT / Employment practices". Archived from the original on 24 August 2018. Retrieved 26 May 2013.
  19. ↑ "Judgement Day Verdict – Highlights". McSpotlight. 19 June 1997. Archived from the original on 8 June 2019. Retrieved 14 July 2006.
  20. 1 2 "McLibel pair get police payout". BBC News . 5 July 2000. Retrieved 12 May 2007.
  21. ↑ "Press Release – McLibel Support Campaign; 6 January 1999". Mcspotlight.org. Retrieved 13 November 2008.
  22. ↑ "One Brick Court – Barristers". onebrickcourt.com. Archived from the original on 20 December 2008. Retrieved 15 February 2008.
  23. ↑ "Curriculum Vitae – Timothy Atkinson". www.mcspotlight.org.
  24. ↑ "Curriculum Vitae – Patti Brinley-Codd". www.mcspotlight.org.
  25. ↑ "Press Release – McLibel Support Campaign; 25th March 1999". www.mcspotlight.org.
  26. ↑ [Appeal Judgment p247]
  27. ↑ The Times, 24 April 1999.
  28. ↑ Gibb, Frances (16 February 2005). "McDonald's gets a taste of defeat as Europe backs the McLibel Two". The Times. London. Retrieved 29 January 2011.[ dead link ]
  29. ↑ European Court of Human Rights Application
  30. 1 2 3 4 "HUDOC – European Court of Human Rights". hudoc.echr.coe.int.
  31. ↑ "Victory for McLibel 2 against UK Government". McSpotlight. 15 February 2005. Retrieved 14 July 2006.
  32. ↑ Paul Farrell and Rob Evans (9 March 2016). "Undercover UK police spy apologises after being tracked down by woman he deceived". The Guardian.
  33. ↑ "Defamation Act 2013: Libel Reform Campaign Briefing". www.niassembly.gov.uk.
  34. ↑ Byrne, Matt (7 May 2013). "Can new Act clean up libel law?". The Lawyer .
  35. ↑ "Defamation Act 2013". 24 March 2014.
  36. ↑ Skau, S. (2013), "McLibel", followthethings.com.
  37. 1 2 The Reunion – the McLibel Trial. The Reunion. BBC Radio 4. Event occurs at 30m20s. Retrieved 18 April 2023. My former partner at the time I got the writ was an undercover policemen, obviously I did not know that until many years later, He was infiltrating London Greenpeace, he became the treasurer of London Greenpeace, he was actively involved in the McLibel support campaign
  38. ↑ The Reunion – the McLibel Trial. The Reunion. BBC Radio 4. Event occurs at 31m03s. Retrieved 18 April 2023. Through the McLibel case documents showed that McDonald's private investigators had been meeting with the Metropolitan Police and getting information from them and we, after McLibel was over, we sued the Metropolitan Police for giving that information to McDonald's and they made an out of court settlement and an apology and undertook not to share information from police computers with corporations
  39. ↑ "29 Million Viewers for Banned McLibel Doc". Spanner Films. 4 August 2004. Retrieved 17 January 2009.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defamation</span> Any communication that can injure a third partys reputation

Defamation is a communication that injures a third party's reputation and causes a legally redressable injury. The precise legal definition of defamation varies from country to country. It is not necessarily restricted to making assertions that are falsifiable, and can extend to concepts that are more abstract than reputation – like dignity and honour. In the English-speaking world, the law of defamation traditionally distinguishes between libel and slander. It is treated as a civil wrong, as a criminal offence, or both.

Strategic lawsuits against public participation, or strategic litigation against public participation, are lawsuits intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.

Jury nullification, also known in the United Kingdom as jury equity, or a perverse verdict, is when the jury in a criminal trial gives a verdict of not guilty even though they think a defendant has broken the law. The jury's reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case, that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant. Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses. Nullification is not an official part of criminal procedure but is the logical consequence of two rules governing the systems in which it exists:

  1. Jurors cannot be punished for passing an incorrect verdict.
  2. In many jurisdictions, a defendant who is acquitted cannot be tried a second time for the same offense.
<i>Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto</i> Libel case

Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto February 20, 1995 – July 20, 1995. 2 S.C.R. 1130 was a libel case against the Church of Scientology, in which the Supreme Court of Canada interpreted Ontario's libel law in relation to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Acquittal</span> The legal result of a verdict of not guilty

In common law jurisdictions, an acquittal means that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charge presented. It certifies that the accused is free from the charge of an offense, as far as criminal law is concerned. The finality of an acquittal is dependent on the jurisdiction. In some countries, such as the United States, an acquittal prohibits the retrial of the accused for the same offense, even if new evidence surfaces that further implicates the accused. The effect of an acquittal on criminal proceedings is the same whether it results from a jury verdict or results from the operation of some other rule that discharges the accused. In other countries, like Australia and the UK, the prosecuting authority may appeal an acquittal similar to how a defendant may appeal a conviction — but usually only if new and compelling evidence comes to light or the accused has interfered with or intimidated a juror or witness.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that the freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restrict the ability of public officials to sue for defamation. The decision held that if a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit is a public official or candidate for public office, then not only must they prove the normal elements of defamation—publication of a false defamatory statement to a third party—they must also prove that the statement was made with "actual malice", meaning the defendant either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded whether it might be false. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan is frequently ranked as one of the greatest Supreme Court decisions of the modern era.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Helen Steel</span> Environmental and social justice activist

Helen Steel is an environmental and social justice activist who is known for her involvement in the McLibel case, an English lawsuit for libel filed by McDonald's Corporation that lasted for 10 years and was eventually taken to the European Court of Human Rights, where Steel and fellow campaigner David Morris won their case against the UK Government on the grounds that they had been denied a fair trial. She is a key figure in the 'Spycops' scandal and subsequent Undercover Policing Inquiry.

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court establishing the standard of First Amendment protection against defamation claims brought by private individuals. The Court held that, so long as they do not impose liability without fault, states are free to establish their own standards of liability for defamatory statements made about private individuals. However, the Court also ruled that if the state standard is lower than actual malice, the standard applying to public figures, then only actual damages may be awarded.

In England and Wales, a litigant in person is an individual, company or organisation that has rights of audience and is not represented in a court of England and Wales by a solicitor or barrister. Instructing a barrister and not a solicitor, for example through the Public Access Scheme, however, does not prevent the party on whose behalf the barrister had been instructed from being a litigant in person.

Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal.4th 33 (2006), was a California Supreme Court case concerning online defamation. The case resolved a defamation claim brought by Stephen Barrett, Terry Polevoy, and attorney Christopher Grell against Ilena Rosenthal and several others. Barrett and others alleged that the defendants had republished libelous information about them on the internet. In a unanimous decision, the court held that Rosenthal was a "user of interactive computer services" and therefore immune from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

A stay of proceedings is a ruling by the court in civil and criminal procedure that halts further legal process in a trial or other legal proceeding. The court can subsequently lift the stay and resume proceedings based on events taking place after the stay is ordered. However, a stay is sometimes used as a device to postpone proceedings indefinitely.

McDonald's has been involved in a number of lawsuits and other legal cases in the course of the fast food chain's 70-year history. Many of these have involved trademark issues, most of which involving the "Mc" prefix, but McDonald's has also launched a defamation suit which has been described as "the biggest corporate PR disaster in history".

Libel tourism is a term, first coined by Geoffrey Robertson, to describe forum shopping for libel suits. It particularly refers to the practice of pursuing a case in England and Wales, in preference to other jurisdictions, such as the United States, which provide more extensive defenses for those accused of making derogatory statements.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Juries in England and Wales</span> Law of trial by jury in England and Wales

In the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales, there is a long tradition of jury trial that has evolved over centuries. Under present-day practice, juries are generally summoned for criminal trials in the Crown Court where the offence is an indictable offence or an offence triable either way. All common law civil cases were tried by jury until the introduction of juryless trials in the new county courts in 1846, and thereafter the use of juries in civil cases steadily declined. Liability to be called upon for jury service is covered by the Juries Act 1974.

Modern libel and slander laws in many countries are originally descended from English defamation law. The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure; civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent as far back as the Statute of Gloucester in the reign of Edward I (1272–1307). The law of libel emerged during the reign of James I (1603–1625) under Attorney General Edward Coke who started a series of libel prosecutions. Scholars frequently attribute strict English defamation law to James I's outlawing of duelling. From that time, both the criminal and civil remedies have been found in full operation.

London Greenpeace was an anarchist environmentalist activist collective that existed between 1972 and 2001. They were based in London, and came to international prominence when two of their activists refused to capitulate to McDonald's in the landmark libel case known as "McLibel". It was not affiliated with Greenpeace International nor with Greenpeace UK.

<i>Irving v Penguin Books Ltd</i> Case in English law against American author Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher Penguin Books

David Irving v Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt is a case in English law against American historian Deborah Lipstadt and her British publisher Penguin Books, filed in the High Court of Justice by the British author David Irving in 1996, asserting that Lipstadt had libelled him in her 1993 book Denying the Holocaust. The court ruled that Irving's claim of libel relating to Holocaust denial was not valid under English defamation law because Lipstadt's claim that he had deliberately distorted evidence had been shown to be substantially true. English libel law puts the burden of proof on the defence, meaning that it was up to Lipstadt and her publisher to prove that her claims of Irving's deliberate misrepresentation of evidence to conform to his ideological viewpoints were substantially true.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mark Stephens (solicitor)</span> English solicitor

Mark Howard Stephens is an English solicitor specializing in media law, intellectual property rights, freedom of speech and human rights. He is known for representing James Hewitt when allegations of his affair with Diana, Princess of Wales first emerged. In 2010, he represented Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, defending him against an extradition request to Sweden based on suspicion of numerous sexual offences. He also founded the law firm Howard Kennedy LLP, which has represented several high-profile clients in media and entertainment law cases.

Robert Lambert MBE is a British academic and former undercover police officer. He served in the controversial Special Demonstration Squad and posed as a left-wing animal rights activist from 1983 to 1988, fathering a child with an activist, who was unaware of his true identity, during his deployment. Both the woman and her child have needed psychiatric treatment as a result, and both have been awarded damages against the Police.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defamation Act 2013</span> United Kingdom law reforming defamation law in England & Wales

The Defamation Act 2013 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which changed English defamation law on issues of the right to freedom of expression and the protection of reputation. It also comprised a response to perceptions that the law as it stood was giving rise to libel tourism and other inappropriate claims.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.