## Facts

- Helen Steel and David Morris, low-income activists associated with “London Greenpeace,” distributed a leaflet criticizing McDonald’s on environmental, health, labor, and advertising practices.
- McDonald’s Corporation and its UK subsidiary sued in libel in England; Steel and Morris ultimately remained as the principal defendants.
- English law excluded defamation actions from civil legal aid, so Steel and Morris were denied legal aid and largely represented themselves against a well-resourced corporate legal team.
- The domestic case involved extensive expert and documentary evidence and became exceptionally long (over 300 trial days, plus appeal).
- The High Court found several allegations defamatory and not proved true, while accepting some criticisms as having a sufficient factual basis; damages were awarded (£60,000), later reduced on appeal (£40,000).
- After losing in domestic courts, the applicants complained to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) alleging violations of Article 6(1) (fair trial) and Article 10 (freedom of expression).

## Issues

1. Whether denying legal aid in a lengthy, technically complex libel action between a multinational company and impecunious, unrepresented defendants violated Article 6(1)’s fair-hearing and equality-of-arms requirements.
2. Whether the libel liability and damages, imposed in proceedings marked by that imbalance and requiring proof of serious factual allegations, were a disproportionate interference with Article 10 freedom of expression on matters of public interest.

## Decision

- The ECtHR held the United Kingdom violated Article 6(1).
- The Court found the denial of legal aid prevented the applicants from presenting their case effectively and produced an unacceptable inequality of arms.
- The ECtHR also held the United Kingdom violated Article 10.
- Although the interference pursued a legitimate aim (protecting reputation) and was prescribed by law, the combined effect of the proceedings’ complexity, the applicants’ lack of representation, and the chilling effect of damages made the interference not necessary in a democratic society.
- The Court awarded just satisfaction, including compensation for damage and costs.

## Legal Principles

- Article 6(1) does not require legal aid in all civil cases, but access to court must be practical and effective; legal aid may be required where complexity, stakes, and a party’s capacity to self-represent otherwise make proceedings unfair.
- Equality of arms is violated when structural resource disparities and the absence of funded representation prevent one side from presenting its case effectively in high-stakes, complex litigation.
- Defamation judgments and damages are interferences with Article 10; even when lawful and aimed at protecting reputation, they must be proportionate and necessary in a democratic society.
- Companies may protect their reputations, but large public-facing companies are subject to wider limits of acceptable criticism where speech concerns public-interest matters (health, environment, labor).
- Procedural fairness and equality of arms may be relevant to proportionality under Article 10 where domestic defamation remedies risk suppressing public-interest advocacy.

## Conclusion

The ECtHR ruled that the applicants’ lack of legal aid in exceptionally complex libel proceedings rendered the trial unfair under Article 6(1) and, in turn, made the resulting defamation liability and damages a disproportionate restriction on public-interest expression under Article 10.


Steel & Morris v. United Kingdom, App. No. 68416/01, 41 Eur. H.R. Rep. 22 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2005)