I posted about the Sylvester case because something in my EU class on Tuesday had brought it to mind. Then later today I saw this case reported in the NY Times.
In England, libel cases are much easier for the plaintiffs to win than they are in the US. The burden is on the defendants to prove that everything they said was true, whereas in the US the plaintiffs have to prove that what the defendants wrote is false (more or less, but the point is that the respective burdens are much higher on the defendants/writers in England than in the US.)
In a famous case, known as "McLibel," activists who wrote a pamphlet, "What's Wrong with McDonalds" were sued in England by the company for libel. The activists didn't have money to hire lawyers, while McDonalds spent 10 million pounds on the litigation. The activists lost because ultimately they couldn't prove the truth of all the assertions and were required to pay damages to the company.
Today the European Court weighed in against the British government, saying that the trial was not fair. It ordered the government to pay 80,000+ Euros to the activists and offer them another trial.
From the Times:
"On Tuesday, the European Court of Human Rights said the ruling was unfair, in part because Ms. Steel and Mr. Morris were not granted legal aid."...
"The European court also weighed in on freedom of expression, saying that there was a 'strong public interest' in enabling groups outside the mainstream to 'contribute to the public debate by disseminating information and ideas on matters of general public interest such as health and environment.'"
It's a fascinating piece of jurisprudence, also with potentially significant implications. Holding a state liable for failing to protect the rights of litigants in its system is a significant rebuke. Also, to the extent that the decision affects free speech, it might also provide pressure on England to adjust its libel laws to better accomodate independent dissident voices.
The case itself can be read here: Case of Steel and Morris v. The United Kingdom. It's a fairly easy read, and worth checking out for more details about the holding and the authority upon which it was based.
Interestingly, in the decision by the Court is a reprinting, for all the world to see, of the original pamphlet.
Comments (3)
Yup...
British libel laws suck... and should be changed to better protect free speech.
On the other hand, I'm not sure how any government can be expected to spend the money on civil legal aid necessary to defend these types of suits for folks.
BTW-- my read of the case is that the european court did not order that the appellants be given the right to have a new trial. The appellants were merely given damages to compensate (in theory) their actual damages as a result of having to defend the case without counsel (basically emotional distress damages), plus their costs of appeal to the european court. There was no need for a retrial in the UK courts, because the monetary judgement to Mickey D's was not longer enforceable as a result of the passage of time.
Mark
Posted by Mark | February 16, 2005 7:01 PM
Posted on February 16, 2005 19:01
I'm not seeing the part about the new trial either, although it's late and I might be missing a subtilty.
But it looks like the award is still enforceable (see paragraph 97), although McDonald's might need to get permission from the court in order to pursue it.
Posted by Cathy | February 16, 2005 7:15 PM
Posted on February 16, 2005 19:15
See paras 105 and 46...
I think the EU court is essentially saying that granting enforcement of the remedy would require extraordinany leave of the British court, and that such leave was not likely to be forthcoming in light of the EU court's decision (and in light of the fact that as a practical matter, McD's was clearly unlikley to seek such an order-- because McD's already had what it wanted)
Mark
Posted by Mark | February 17, 2005 11:40 AM
Posted on February 17, 2005 11:40