## Facts

- This *Civil Justice Quarterly* case note discusses the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgment in *Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom* (App. No. 68416/01), which arose out of the “McLibel” litigation in England.
- Helen Steel and David Morris were members of “London Greenpeace,” a small activist group that distributed a leaflet alleging misconduct by McDonald’s, including claims about environmental effects, labor practices, animal welfare, food safety, and advertising aimed at children.
- McDonald’s Corporation and McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd. brought libel proceedings against Steel and Morris in England, alleging that they were responsible for publishing the leaflet.
- At the time, the English legal-aid scheme excluded defamation proceedings, so Steel and Morris could not obtain legal aid for the case. They represented themselves for most of the litigation, with only limited and intermittent volunteer assistance.
- McDonald’s was represented throughout by experienced solicitors and counsel. The case involved a large evidentiary record and difficult questions of law and fact.
- The trial lasted roughly 313 court days and became the longest civil trial in English legal history. The domestic courts found some statements justified and others defamatory, and damages were awarded against Steel and Morris (reduced on appeal).
- Steel and Morris applied to the ECtHR, arguing that (1) the lack of legal aid deprived them of a fair hearing and equality of arms under Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and (2) aspects of the defamation regime and the outcome of the case violated their freedom of expression under Article 10, including the requirement that they prove the truth of the leaflet’s allegations.

## Issues

1. Whether the United Kingdom violated Article 6 § 1 by failing to provide legal aid in exceptionally long and legally demanding libel proceedings, leaving impecunious defendants to face a well-funded corporate claimant without sustained legal representation.
2. Whether the defamation proceedings and resulting liability/discussion of burdens of proof constituted a disproportionate interference with Steel’s and Morris’s Article 10 right to freedom of expression on matters of public interest.

## Decision

- The ECtHR held that the denial of legal aid in these circumstances violated Article 6 § 1 because it prevented Steel and Morris from presenting their case effectively and created an unacceptable imbalance between the parties.
- The ECtHR held that there was also a violation of Article 10 because, given the subject matter (public-interest campaigning) and the procedural imbalance, the interference with expression was not shown to be necessary in a democratic society.
- The ECtHR awarded just satisfaction, including compensation for non-pecuniary harm and an award for costs and expenses.

## Legal Principles

- Article 6 does not require civil legal aid in every case; the question is whether legal aid (or other measures) is needed for a fair hearing in the particular proceedings.
- In civil litigation, equality of arms is a core element of a fair trial. Where one side is consistently represented by specialist lawyers and the other is unrepresented in a demanding, high-stakes case, the proceedings may be unfair.
- Defamation actions may pursue the legitimate aim of protecting reputation, and permitting corporate claimants to sue is not, by itself, incompatible with Article 10.
- Requiring defendants to prove the truth of allegedly defamatory statements is not automatically contrary to Article 10, but the overall structure and operation of the remedy must still be proportionate.
- When speech concerns matters of public interest, Article 10 requires careful review of whether restrictions are justified; procedural conditions that make meaningful defense unrealistic can bear directly on proportionality.
- A legal framework that allows powerful claimants to bring defamation actions against individuals of modest means must provide safeguards that prevent public-interest speech from being suppressed through unequal litigation conditions.

## Conclusion

In *Steel and Morris v. The United Kingdom* as discussed at 25 Civ. Just. Q. 5 (2006), the ECtHR concluded that excluding defamation from legal aid rendered the McLibel proceedings unfair under Article 6 and, in light of the public-interest nature of the leaflet and the resulting imbalance in the proceedings, the interference with Steel’s and Morris’s freedom of expression was disproportionate under Article 10.


Steel and Morris v. The United Kingdom, 25 Civ. Just. Q. 5 (2006)