STRASBOURG, Feb 15: The European Court of Human Rights on Tuesday condemned Britain for violating the rights of two activists convicted of libelling US fast food chain McDonald's, ending a 15-year legal battle.
The decision marked a victory for campaigners Helen Steel and Dave Morris, who were found guilty in the so-called "McLibel" trial, the longest in English legal history.
The Strasbourg-based court ruled that Britain had violated Articles 6.1 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantee the right to a fair hearing and the right to freedom of expression.
"The Court finds that the denial of legal aid to the applicants deprived them of the opportunity to present their case effectively before the court and contributed to an unacceptable inequality of arms with McDonald's," it said.
The panel added: "The Court does not consider that the correct balance was struck between the need to protect the applicants' rights to freedom of expression and the need to protect McDonald's rights and reputation."
Steel and Morris distributed leaflets in London in 1989 and 1990 entitled "What's Wrong with McDonald's?", which accused the chain of selling unhealthy food, harming the environment and exploiting children with its advertising.
The "McLibel" trial ran for 313 days before High Court judge Rodger Bell ruled in June 1997 that the leaflet was largely untrue. McDonald's won 60,000 pounds (87,250 euros, 113,300 dollars) from each in damages, later reduced by a third, but Steel, 39, and Morris, 50, both unemployed residents of north London, never paid the damages.
On Tuesday, the European court instead ordered Britain to pay damages of 20,000 euros to Steel and 15,000 euros to Morris. It also ordered Britain to pay court costs of 47,311 euros and 17 cents.
In a hearing before the Strasbourg court, the pair accused Britain of failing to grant them a fair trial, with their lawyer citing the "blatant imbalance of resources" between the activists and the fast food giant.
McDonald's reportedly spent 10 million pounds in pursuing the case, while Steel and Morris were refused legal aid and represented themselves throughout the marathon trial in Britain.
The campaigners also argued that their right to freedom to expression had been violated by the heavy burden of proof placed upon them by Britain's tough libel laws - an argument supported by the court. -AFP
