IF YOU WISH TO REMOVE YOURSELF FROM THIS LIST FOR ANY REASON just send an email to listserv@netcom.com containing only the line: unsubscribe snuffit-l DO NOT WHINE TO THE POSTMASTER. DO NOT SEND UNSUBSCRIBE MESSAGES TO: snuffit-l@netcom.com, listserver@netcom.com, coe@netcom.com ------------------------------------------------------------------- (Letter from Albert Beale in London and article by Dan Mills at the London office) Wednesday 7 June One of the national daily papers here - The Independent - has had McLibel stuff on its front page two days running: On Monday a speculative(?)/informed(?) piece about how McD want to ditch the case against the 2 because of the bad publicity, if only they could do it without giving carte blanche to others to repeat the allegations without risk of legal action. Yesterday thee was a lovely front page pic of a Ronald McD in a south London park (with 70 technicians/extras/etc) where they'd gone to spend two days trying to film a new commercial, only to find a bunch of anti-McDers with banners etc getting in the way. Police and local council officials were both brought in by the advertising agency, but both said protesters had as much right to wander in the park as the filmers did - even though the filmers had permission and had spent the previous week tarting up part of the park in readiness! Heh-heh!! Albert Beale ============================================== McLIBEL TRIAL - LEGAL SUMMARY, March 1995 'McLibel 2' bite back against Big Mac by Dan Mills Mr Morris: "A diet high in fat, sugar, animal products and salt and low in fibre, vitamins and minerals is linked with cancer of the breast and bowel and heart disease". Is that a reasonable statement? Dr Arnott: ...If it is being directed to the public, then I would say it is a very reasonable thing to say... Mr Morris: That is actually a quote from the London Greenpeace Factsheet which is the subject of the libel action. This is an exchange between a Defendant in person and one of the Plaintiffs' expert witnesses in what is scheduled to be the longest libel trial in British history, namely McDonald's Corporation & Another v Steel & Morris. The so-called 'McLibel' Trial is a mammoth legal battle between two unwaged campaigners and the $24 billion a year fast-food multinational company. After 26 pre-trial hearings and much controversy, the Trial started on 28th June 1994 in the High Court, and is expected to run until at least the end of this year. 180 witnesses from the UK and abroad are giving evidence. The extract above, quoted by Mr Morris from the London Greenpeace Factsheet (which described an average McDonald's meal as high in fat and low in fibre) had been characterised at pre-trial hearings as the central and most "defamatory" allegation, which if proven would be the "kiss of death"* for a fast-food company like McDonald's. On the strength of the supposed scientific complexities surrounding this issue, the Defendants had been denied their right to a jury. * Richard Rampton QC for McDonald's, Court of Appeal, 16th March 1994 Background to the case In 1986, London Greenpeace (which pre-dates and has no connection to Greenpeace International) produced the Factsheet entitled "What's Wrong With McDonald's", drawing together criticisms of McDonald's made by concerned people and organisations around the world. The areas covered in the Factsheet, which have become the issues in the Trial, include: the responsibility of corporations such as McDonald's for damage to the environment, including destruction of forests and the effects of wasteful packaging; McDonald's promotion and sale of unhealthy food; the effects of advertising on children; the rearing and slaughter of animals to supply products for McDonald's; the low pay and poor conditions faced by workers in the catering industry, including McDonald's; McDonald's hostility towards trade unions. In September 1990, after sending private investigators to London Greenpeace meetings, McDonald's served libel writs on five individuals connected to the group. McDonald's appeared to think that, given the time, expense and legal difficulties involved in defending a libel action, the five would apologise. The five Defendants were advised that since there is no legal aid to fight libel cases, their chances of successfully fighting the case, or even getting as far as the trial itself, were virtually nil. Faced with this, three of the defendants reluctantly decided to apologise and so avoid any costs. Legal Aid and a Jury Denied Despite the lack of legal aid, Steel and Morris decided to fight the case as litigants in person, determined to counter, as they saw it, McDonald's attempts to censor their critics. They made an unsuccessful submission to the European Court of Human Rights regarding legal aid - without a full hearing, the court ruled that, as the Defendants had put up a "tenacious Defence", they could not say they were being denied access to justice. Representing themselves involves not only mastering court procedures and legal jargon, and speaking in court, but also organising witnesses and approximately 40,000 pages of documents, and mastering a welter of scientific and technical detail. Both Defendants complain that there are papers "all over the floor" in their respective flats. McDonald's are employing the solicitors Barlow Lyde & Gilbert, together with Richard Rampton QC and Tim Atkinson as leading and junior Counsel. As a result, "David vs Goliath" has become the media's favourite analogy. Steel and Morris do receive occasional legal advice from barristers and solicitors on an informal basis, and some barristers or pupils help in court as McKenzie friends (coordinated by Liberty). But it is the Defendants who have to get to grips with the evidence and present their case in court. They had little or no experience of the legal system before the writs were served, but during the 4 years of pre-trial hearings and the trial itself, the Defendants' advocacy skills have improved considerably and their confidence is growing. Since June, a procession of sober-suited McDonald's executives from both sides of the Atlantic have taken the stand in the High Court. "They can't walk away from the witness box the way they've walked away when confronted by critics in the past," Steel observes. "They have to come up with answers to our questions." So the Corporation's business practices have been put under an intense spotlight. The Trial is being heard by Mr Justice Bell without a jury. McDonald's successfully argued that the then controversial issue of a link between diet and cancer was 'too complex' to allow its assessment by a jury. The Defendants lost their appeal on this point in the Court of Appeal, and were refused leave to appeal by the House of Lords. This 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." Steel and Morris are considering an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights on this point after the Trial. Discovery and Counterclaim There has been a long-running dispute in the case over discovery of documents - the Defendants claim that some documents have been withheld, particularly in the areas of hostility to trade unions and destruction of rainforests. During the pre-trial hearings, the Judge took the unusual step of ordering three of McDonald's Vice Presidents to swear affidavits (in addition to those already sworn by their solicitors) on the existence and possession of documents for which the Defendants had applied. The Defendants found the affidavits to be lacking in detail and obtained an order requiring the executives to swear further affidavits, to be served before they gave evidence. There was also a prolonged dispute over a document most of which had been blanked-out by the Plaintiffs - this forms part of the evidence concerning an advertising campaign, which made nutritional claims for McDonald's food, and which the Attorneys General of three US states told McDonald's to withdraw or face legal action. McDonald's finally disclosed the document in full, but not until the relevant witnesses had given their evidence. On the eve of the Trial, McDonald's issued press releases and leaflets (which were available nationwide in the company's stores) claiming that their critics, including the Defendants, were deliberately circulating lies about the company. As a result, Steel and Morris lodged a counterclaim against the fast food giant for libel. Witnesses and Striking Out In 1993, Steel and Morris were ordered to produce witness statements within 3 weeks. They worked night and day contacting the people who had approached them or been recommended to them, asking each of them to make a statement. It was a "massive job", Morris explains, "we did not interview any witnesses and just asked them to put down their experiences or their knowledge in their own words". On the final day, much to the astonishment of McDonald's and their advisors, Steel and Morris served 65 witness statements. McDonald's then succeeded in obtaining an order striking out the parts of the defence which were not supported by witness statements. The Court of Appeal over-turned this in a "landmark decision", ruling that all the different forms of evidence on which a libel defendant may be entitled to rely at trial should be taken into account when deciding whether to strike out. The appeal court ruled that this includes evidence contained in documents disclosed by the plaintiff on discovery, answers to interrogatories, evidence on subpoena, and evidence elicited from the plaintiff or plaintiff's witnesses in the course of cross-examination. The Trial so far "The case has completely dominated our lives for over two years," says Morris. "It's been a long ordeal. We've had no time for anything else." Before the trial began, Rampton forecast it would last 3 to 4 weeks. 18 months is now a more likely estimate. Most of the evidence heard has been on packaging, nutrition and advertising. The Animal Welfare, Hygiene and Food Poisoning section is now underway, and will be continuing until April. The following are some snippets of the Trial: Paul Preston (McDonald's UK President) said that if one million customers each bought a soft drink, he would not expect more than 100 to 150 cups to end up as litter. Photographs were then put to Mr Preston, which showed 27 pieces of McDonald's litter in one stretch of pavement alone (the company has over 550 stores in the UK and serves a million customers each day). Ed Oakley, Senior Vice-President, denied that the company's so called "Environmental Initiatives" were, in the main, a propaganda exercise. However, one of the company's nationally available 'McFact' cards publicised a scheme to recycle polystyrene waste from Nottingham stores, where customers were asked to put polystyrene packaging into a separate bin, "for recycling into such things as plant pots, coat hangers and insulation material for use in homes, even fillings for duvets". Mr Oakley admitted that despite the scheme continuing for several years, the company did not recycle any of the waste and, in fact, the polystyrene was "dumped". When asked about the company's description of its food as 'nutritious', McDonald's expert witness on nutrition defined the word to mean "contains nutrients". He then accepted that all foods have nutrients. When asked to define 'junk food', he said it was 'whatever a person doesn't like' (in his case semolina). Counsel then intervened to say that McDonald's was not objecting to the description of their products as 'junk food'! During the Defendants' opening speeches, internal company documents (which had been mistakenly disclosed by McDonald's solicitors) were read to the court in which McDonald's admitted the purchase in the UK in 1983/4 of beef imported from Brazil, a rainforest country - something which the company had always denied. David Walker, Chairman of the sole supplier of the company's UK hamburgers (now one million per day) admitted that he had personally organised the direct import of these 5 consignments. A letter from Mr Walker, quoted in court, revealed that McDonald's UK had given Walker permission to use the Brazilian beef imports shortly after Fred Turner, the Chairman of the McDonald's Corporation, had "issued a worldwide edict that no McDonald's plant was to use Brazilian beef". McDonald's expert witness on the rearing and slaughter of animals said the company's egg suppliers keep chickens in battery cages, 5 chickens to a cage with less than an A4 sheet of paper per bird, and with no freedom of movement and no access to fresh air or sunshine. Ed Oakley, Senior Vice-President, said McDonald's had thought about switching to free range eggs, but, not only are battery eggs "50% cheaper", but he claimed "hens kept in batteries are better cared for". He said he thinks battery cages are "pretty comfortable". The Employment section of the Trial, which will be the largest section, is set to begin in April. Forty ex-McDonald's workers will be testifying about the poor pay and conditions. Trade union officials and activists from around the world will be giving evidence about their experience of McDonald's hostility to trade unions. Moving the goalposts After the destruction of McDonald's case on the links between diet and cancer, McDonald's applied and were given permission to amend their Statement of Claim (issued in September 1990) in this area, despite vigorous protests by the Defendants. McDonald's have thus been able to move the goalposts after most of the evidence in this area has been heard. The Defendants may now have to prove the statement (not contained in the London Greenpeace Factsheet) that "McDonald's sell meals which cause cancer and heart disease in their customers". Helen and Dave may be forced to recall some witnesses to be cross-examined again. In addition to the issue of diet and cancer, McDonald's have changed their case on the Animals issue. They are no longer objecting to the terms 'torture' and 'murder' being used to describe the rearing and slaughter of animals to make McDonald's burgers, but have widened the issues in dispute in this area of the case. Who gains what? McDonald's are claiming damages and costs (estimated at over #3m), as are the Defendants in their counterclaim. Since the Defendants have no money, McDonald's cannot hope to receive anything from them. The Defendants are paying their expenses through donations received from the public. McDonald's are asking for an injunction to prevent Steel and Morris from repeating the criticisms in the Factsheet, but the publicity and protests surrounding the Trial, both in this country and abroad, have already ensured that the issues have been aired to a much wider audience than supporters of London Greenpeace could have hoped for in the 1980's. The McLibel Support Campaign, set up to generate solidarity and financial backing for the Defendants and to continue campaigning against McDonald's, is run by a group of volunteers. They are calling on people to leaflet outside their local store on 15th April, McDonald's 40th anniversary and an International Day of Action. "Thousands of people have pledged to continue to hand out leaflets critical of McDonald's," Morris says. "No matter what happens to us, these leaflets will circulate in even greater numbers than before. The whole McDonald's effort has been about silencing critics and campaigners - and they have failed." According to Auberon Waugh (Daily Telegraph, October 1994), in this case "the entire nation is, in a sense, the jury". I agree and believe that not only is McDonald's on trial, but also the fairness of the libel laws in this country. For more information or to send donations, contact McLibel Support Campaign, 5 Caledonian Road, London N1 9DX (Tel/Fax 0171 713 1269). If you can help as a McKenzie friend, please contact Brendon Delaney at Liberty, 21 Tabard Street, London SE1 4LA (Tel 0171 403 3888). Dan Mills is a solicitor who is currently working as a volunteer for the McLibel Support Campaign. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. McLibel Support Campaign Press Office PO Box 62 Phone/Fax 802-586-9628 Craftsbury VT 05826-0062 Email dbriars@world.std.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe to the "mclibel" listserve, send email To: majordomo@world.std.com Subject: