* In September 1990 McDonald's wrote to the five core members of the group. The Background Briefing was calculated to give the impression that a City Law firm and two specialist libel barristers had been appointed to act for the Defendants generally in the proceedings, when they had only acted on a pro bono basis on an interlocutory appeal, as Mr Nicholson who followed all the proceedings carefully must have known and as he must have told Mr Love and Ms Bensilum. She is first of the two remaining Defendants and she gave evidence. It is only designed to intimidate critics and would-be critics. And so it was not like, you know, that is contradicted by anything I personally know about McDonald's". The Second Plaintiff did not contend, for its case of qualified privilege, that the "reply" was to the original "attack" made by publication of the leaflet between September,1987, and September,1990, upon which its own claim in the proceedings relied. Mr Robert Beavers, Senior Vice President of the First Plaintiff Corporation and an Executive Member of its Board of Directors said that he found everything which he read in the leaflet complained of "completely untrue". When McDonald’s leaned on Elkington and Hailes to retract the rainforest allegation, the pair put forward two conditions. That was why they wanted to see the case through. First that McDonald’s implement a well-thought-out environmental policy across its operations.

I cannot accept the suggestion by counsel for the Second Plaintiff that the use of the word "lies" was just an emphatic way of saying that the allegations in the leaflet were untrue. We have built up a countrywide network of hundreds of supporters (groups and individuals), but we need more individuals to join the London MSC group". demonstrate McDonald's is open, friendly and has nothing to hide. The company offers excellent career opportunities with promotion on merit. The motives with which human beings act are mixed.


On 8th March,1996, Mr Preston signed a further witness statement which must have been prepared some time before, accepting that it was wrong to say that several letters had been written to London Greenpeace and remained unanswered.

The charges of lying in the leaflet, but trying to avoid responsibility for it, are clearly defamatory, but the Second Plaintiff defended them in two ways. This paper will walk you through what a cold case investigation is, how one begins, and factors such as the use of volunteers can effect the outcome of a cold case investigation. The case is a European example of the so-called Slapp (strategic lawsuit against public participation) phenomenon – lawsuits designed to squelch criticism of a company or government agency on an issue of public interest. The leaflet in question was not the leaflet complained of in these proceedings, which first saw the light of day in 1986, but it did carry some of the same features and allegations as the later leaflet complained of. The same applied to the Briefing which he sent to Stern in May,1996. "Hoof Prints on the Forest" has McDonald's in a chart of "companies with cattle ranching interests in tropical Latin America" but the entry against McDonald's was "hamburger franchises".

Other used the same metaphor to express their feeling for McDonald's.

I have no hesitation in accepting that he believed that the leaflet complained of consisted of lie after lie. If they had, then you know, I would have said something like, "Well, why do you think that? They were expressed in challenging, provocative language, and although the contents of the three documents of which the Defendants complain, generally seek to portray the Plaintiffs in a good light, they pick up a number of the points made by the Defendants, as part of the McLibel Campaign, in their public attack; the alleged assault on the principle of free speech, the alleged cover-up of the truth and the alleged intimidation by the proceedings and by the claim for damages and costs. But were the untrue statements about the purchase of vast tracts of farming land and the use of lethal poisons to destroy vast areas of rainforest lies in Ms Steel's case? It could not be right that anyone who brought a libel action, knowing that it would attract media attention, could go out and try to discredit the character of a Defendant. * The group have complained that McDonald's has withheld evidence - McDonald's has complied fully with all obligations to disclose documents". That attack had been expressed in the strongest terms and the Defendants cannot complain that like was to some extent met with like.
This case is about establishing the truth and stopping further publication of these lies. It appeared from the evidence that the Background Briefing was produced in order that it could be given to anyone, particularly journalists, who asked for information about the trial. These two individuals have chosen to stand by the contents of the leaflet, McDonald's maintains the leaflet is libellous. Despite several subsequent letters, no acknowledgement or reply was ever received and persistent distribution of the leaflet continued. They contended that the three documents were simply a carefully timed attempt to discredit them on the eve of the trial. We are going to fight them every inch of the way and are launching the McLibel 5 Support Campaign to raise money and bring public attention to their crimes. It involved accusing the Plaintiff of keeping vital documents hidden away. I have no way of knowing, or even estimating just how many leaflets were published to visitors to McDonald's restaurants in any of these ways but in my view the probability is that a significant number were, because the litigation had attracted a lot of media attention. In this month's 74-page issue of Ethical Corporation we do a deep dive into the impact of Covid-19 on sustainability. I quote the text from a copy dated 5/94 because that is the one quoted in the Counterclaim itself, although I also have a third copy dated 6/94 which is virtually identical to the earlier two versions. Those activities amounted to an attack which involved a repetition of the allegations in the leaflet complained of, by summaries of the points at issue and averments that the contents of the leaflet were true. The Scope minutes offer some confirmation of Mr Preston's evidence that he and others wanted to set the record straight as they saw it. This is not an unusual decision in such circumstances.

Ms Steel did not say this specifically in respect of lethal poisons, as she did in respect of the purchase of vast tracts of farming land, but as I heard her evidence, the clear inference was there.

Ms Steel said: "Another thing about my belief in the fact sheet and whether or not it was true, I do recall it being said on a number of occasions -- and I think it appears in some of the leaflets that are in the trial bundles -- that McDonald's had written to London Greenpeace in 1984. If it be provided that he did not believe that what he published was true this is generally conclusive evidence of express malice, for no sense of duty or desire to protect his own legitimate interests can justify a man in telling deliberate and injurious falsehoods about another, save in the exceptional case where a person may be under a duty to pass on, without endorsing, defamatory reports made by some other person. That attack was, of course, about to be subjected to formal trial. She gave her evidence on the issue of publication and other issues including her belief in the truth of the leaflet when she was under the pressure of litigation which it was important for her to win. I turn to the charge that Ms Steel and Mr Morris tried to avoid responsibility for what they had done by falsely claiming that they had not been involved in a London Greenpeace campaign against McDonald's and by ignoring several letters sent to them since 1984 by McDonald's solicitors, complaining about the leaflet in question. So, the motive with which the defendant on a privileged occasion made a statement defamatory of the plaintiff becomes crucial. The Second Plaintiff's solicitors only ever wrote two letters at most to London Greenpeace, until they sent letters on 20th September,1990, with the writs. We looked at the legal situation and felt, in fact, we could prevail.”. Mr Preston said that in January,1994, it became clear that the Defendants, through the McLibel Support Campaign, were intensifying their publicity efforts with a view to manipulating public opinion in the run-up to the trial.

But the victory was hollow. We just have each other and our determination to expose and to fight injustice. But all I am saying is that this did not come as a surprise to me. The High Court will tomorrow (15th March) consider an Appeal by two members of the self-styled anarchist group "London Greenpeace" against a judge's ruling on two procedural issues in the libel action being brought against them by McDonald's. The leaflet did not in fact allege that McDonald's damages the ozone layer, although such an allegation was made in the Defendants' pleaded Particulars of Justification of the charges in the leaflet. And what is the legacy of the McLibel case? If McDonald's does not take action to correct these lies they will be assumed to be true and come to form part of public perception about McDonald's. An anti-McDonald's leafletting campaign in front of the McDonald's restaurant in Leicester Square, London, during … She is an intelligent woman and she knows perfectly well that the leaflet means that vast tracts of land were sold to McDonald's by dollar hungry rulers (often military) and privileged elites. It was put to Mr Preston that this was dishonest. When counsel for the Plaintiffs cross-examined Ms Steel on her belief in what the leaflet said, he concentrated on the allegations about starvation in the Third World and destruction of the rainforest. There are a number of additional issues which have been raised: * The group has suggested that McDonald's is attempting to thwart free speech - this case is about stopping the further publication of lies, it is not about freedom of speech it is about the truth and they are not telling the truth. In her first witness statement, made in July,1993, and confirmed in her oral evidence in July,1996, Ms Steel said: "I am motivated to campaign against McDonald's, and other multinationals, because of my love for the planet we live on, and my love and respect for the people and animals living on it, and because of my desire to see a world free from exploitation and oppression". Through the evidence and statements of both independent experts and company employees McDonald's will demonstrate in court that the company is: CFCs were removed immediately in line with the Montreal Protocol.

The company provides the highest level of training. The other possible indicator of express malice, relevant to the circumstances of this case is lack of honest belief in what is said, by the person claiming privilege. The world has moved on since then and so has McDonald’s.”, The company wouldn’t give an interview to Ethical Corporation about the case, but did comment: “It isn’t a decision we would make today. Writs were served in September 1990, the case went to trial in July 1994 and ended in December 1996, with the court judgment handed down in June 1997. Back to McSpotlight Home Page.

The High Court will tomorrow (15th March) ... made or prompted by the Defendants in the form particularly of material published by the "McLibel Support Campaign", in which the Defendants were alleged to have played a full part.

To counter claims that McDonald's prevents free speech and any other inaccuracies which might arise before, during and after the trial".

as alleged in paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim". The first document was a press release published on the 14th March,1994, in the form of a "Note to News Editors" with a briefing attached. The axioms by which companies have done business for the past 50 years have been upended by the pandemic. A person admits they made a mistake. © Reuters Events 2020 | TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | ABOUT US | +44 0207 375 7212 |, 'This proxy season, investors must speak up against murky climate lobbying'.