Steel & Morris v. United Kingdom
European Court of Human Rights
App. No. 68416/01, Eur. Ct. H.R. 2005-II, 41 E.H.R.R. 22 (2005)
- Written by Andrea Smith, JD
Facts
London Greenpeace distributed a leaflet that condemned McDonald’s (plaintiff) as exploitative, greedy, and unhealthy. McDonald’s sued several Greenpeace members, including Helen Steel and David Morris (defendants), for defamation. According to United Kingdom law, legal aid was unavailable in defamation proceedings. In the ensuing longest trial in English legal history, Steel and Morris primarily represented themselves with sporadic legal help. The trial judge awarded McDonald’s tens of thousands in damages. Steel and Morris appealed to the Court of Appeal, which reduced the damages to about GBP 40,000 due from each Steel and Morris. Steel and Morris were not granted leave to appeal to the House of Lords. Steel and Morris then appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that the United Kingdom violated their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (the convention). In particular, Steel and Morris alleged a violation of Article 6(1) of the convention because the lack of legal aid had violated their right to a fair trial and a violation of Article 10 because their freedom of expression had been unnecessarily interfered with.
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. 46,400 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.