Editing McLibel case (section)

====Court of Appeal====
An appeal began on 12 January 1999, and lasted 23 court days, ending on 26 February.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/press/msc_6jan99.html |title=Press Release – McLibel Support Campaign; 6 January 1999 |publisher=Mcspotlight.org |access-date=13 November 2008}}</ref>  The case was heard in Court 1 of the Court of Appeal in the [[Royal Courts of Justice]]. The case was adjudicated by [[Malcolm Pill|Lord Justices Pill]] and [[Anthony May (judge)|May]] and [[David Keene (judge)|Mr Justice Keene]]. The defendants represented themselves in court, assisted by first year law student Kalvin P. Chapman ([[King's College London]]). McDonald's were represented by libel lawyer [[Richard Rampton]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.onebrickcourt.com/barristers.asp?id=20|title=One Brick Court – Barristers<!-- Bot generated title -->|website=onebrickcourt.com|access-date=15 February 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081220155036/http://www.onebrickcourt.com/barristers.asp?id=20|archive-date=20 December 2008|url-status=dead}}</ref> and a junior barrister, Timothy Atkinson,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mcspotlight.org/people/biogs/atkinson.html|title=Curriculum Vitae – Timothy Atkinson|website=www.mcspotlight.org}}</ref> and Ms Pattie Brinley-Codd of Barlow, Lyde & Gilbert.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mcspotlight.org/people/biogs/brinley_codd.html|title=Curriculum Vitae – Patti Brinley-Codd|website=www.mcspotlight.org}}</ref> Steel and Morris filed a 63-point appeal. They had requested a time extension, but were denied. The verdict for the appeal was handed down on 31 March, in Court 1 at the Royal Courts of Justice.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/press/msc_25mar99.html|title=Press Release – McLibel Support Campaign; 25th March 1999|website=www.mcspotlight.org}}</ref>

The judges ruled it was fair comment to say that McDonald's employees worldwide "do badly in terms of pay and conditions"<ref>[Appeal Judgment p247]</ref> and true "if one eats enough McDonald's food, one's diet may well become high in fat, etc., with the very real risk of heart disease".

As a result of their further findings against the corporation, the three Lord Justices reduced Mr Justice Bell's award of £60,000 damages to McDonald's by £20,000. The court ruled against the argument by Steel and Morris that multinational corporations should no longer be able to sue for libel over [[public interest]] issues. Steel and Morris announced their intention to appeal over these and other points to the [[House of Lords]], and then take the [[UK Government|UK government]] to the [[European Court of Human Rights]] if necessary.

In response to the verdict, [[David Pannick, Baron Pannick|David Pannick]] said in ''[[The Times]]'': "The McLibel case has achieved what many lawyers thought impossible: to lower further the reputation of our law of defamation in the minds of all right thinking people."<ref>''The Times'', 24 April 1999.</ref>

Steel and Morris appealed to the [[Judicial functions of the House of Lords|Law Lords]], arguing that their right to legal aid had been unjustly denied. When the Law Lords refused to accept the case, the pair formally retained [[solicitor]] [[Mark Stephens (solicitor)|Mark Stephens]]<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article515008.ece|title=McDonald's gets a taste of defeat as Europe backs the McLibel Two|work=The Times|date=16 February 2005|access-date=29 January 2011|location=London|first=Frances|last=Gibb}}{{dead link|date=September 2024|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref> and [[barrister]] [[Keir Starmer]] to file a case with the [[European Court of Human Rights]] (ECHR), contesting the UK government's policy that legal aid was not available in libel cases, and setting out a highly detailed case for what they believed to be the oppressive and unfair nature of UK libel laws in general, and in their case in particular.<ref>[http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/trial/verdict/Echr.html European Court of Human Rights Application<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> In September 2004, this action was heard by the ECHR. Lawyers for Steel and Morris argued that the lack of legal aid had breached the pair's right to freedom of expression and to a fair trial.