Britain's libel laws face being re-written after an appeal to a European court from the "McLibel" two, who fought against McDonald's in the longest court case in English legal history.

Helen Steel and David Morris, who first took on the food giant and lost in a 314 day libel action which ended in 1997, have taken the UK Government to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that English libel law is a breach of their right to free speech and favours the rich and powerful.

Ms Steel and Mr Morris, who were prosecuted for libel by McDonalds for distributing protest leaflets, were denied legal aid and could not afford lawyers and so had to defend themselves against the ranks of the team of top lawyers and barristers mustered by McDonalds. They were eventually ordered to pay £60,000.

In their appeal to the Strasbourg court, their lawyer, Keir Starmer QC, paid for out of European funds, told the panel of human rights judges: "This case is about the rights of two ordinary people without power or wealth to engage in a public campaign on matters of public interest and importance."

He said that English libel law breached the European Convention on Human Rights because of the stark inequality between an ordinary couple and a massive corporation.

Ms Steel earned £65 a week as a part time barmaid, while Mr Morris was unemployed living on income support. In contrast, at the end of the case, McDonalds had 18,400 McDonald's outlets in 89 countries with global sales of £16.3 billion.

English libel law, said Mr Starmer, clearly did not meet the requirements of the Human Rights Convention, which guarantees the right to a fair trial and the right to freedom of expression.

Not only did they lack financial support but, under English libel law, they had to establish the exact truth of every statement contained in the leaflet.

This is in contrast to libel law elsewhere in which the onus was on the accused to prove statements were inaccurate. When ordinary people confronted multi-nationals, he said, there was "an inequality of arms".

Ms Steel, 39, and Mr Morris, 50, were taken to court by McDonald's for handing out leaflets entitled What's wrong with McDonald's?, which made allegations about the company's business conduct and the nutritional value of its products.

The High Court in London ruled that McDonald's had been libelled, and awarded it £60,000 in damages, but it also declared that the leaflet had told the truth when it accused McDonald's of paying low wages, being responsible for cruelty to some of the animals used in its food products and exploiting children in advertising campaigns.

Mr Starmer told the Strasbourg court today: "For the duration of the trial, all the applicants could hope to do was to keep going. On several occasions they had to seek adjournments because of their physical exhaustion and when Helen Steel was certified as suffering from stress and exhaustion by her doctor the trial continued in her absence.

"The result was that, without legal assistance, the case was under prepared, unready for trial and was advanced by two inexperienced, untrained and exhausted individuals who were pushed to their physical and metal limits. In short, it was patently unfair."

Mr Starmer said the contrast and inequality could not have been greater. McDonald's was represented by QCs specialising in libel law, with back up from junior barristers and solicitors and administrative staff.

The McDonald's team had access to daily transcripts of the court proceedings as they progressed. But Ms Steel and Mr Morris could not afford the charges and, for the majority of the trial, had to wait 25 days for the transcripts.

However, a government lawyer, Philip Sales, told the European court that the fact that the pair ultimately lost their libel battle was not evidence that they had been let down by English libel laws. He said the fact that the trial lasted so long and went into such detail, demonstrated that they had the fullest access to the courts.

"They were given every possible latitude in the presentation of their case. Indeed, the trial judge went out of his way to a quite extraordinary degree. It is clear the applicants had a fully effective opportunity to present their case" said Mr Sales.

The McLibel two, a former gardener and former postman, are arguing that a multinational should be treated like local authorities and the national government, which are not protected by libel law.

If the couple win, the UK Government would have to comply with the judgement either by adjusting the libel laws or giving more financial assistance to those accused of libel. The court is expected to give its verdict later this year or early next year.

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Queen uses Christmas speech to praise Forces
• Helmand Christmas — the briefest of respites
• Hard work — but the finest bacon