Steel and Morris v. The United Kingdom
Legal Aid in the Court of Human Rights
25 Civ. Just. Q. 5 (2006)
- Written by Andrea Smith, JD
Facts
[Editor’s Note: The casebook excerpt is based on a peer-reviewed journal article addressing the legal-aid provisions in this case.] Steel and Morris (plaintiffs) were defendants in a libel case brought by McDonald’s. The case involved the longest trial in English history and a large volume of material. Steel and Morris did not have sustained and competent legal assistance for the duration of the case. Steel and Morris brought an action in the European Court of Human Rights, alleging that the United Kingdom (defendant) violated Steel’s and Morris’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the convention) because the United Kingdom’s legal-aid provision did not extend to defamation cases. Steel and Morris also argued that the burden of proof, which required them to prove the truth of the defamatory statements on the balance of probabilities, violated their right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the convention.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.