Legal aid will have to be awarded to defendants in libel actions in future, it was claimed this week, after the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that the two campaigners involved in a long-running legal battle with fast food giant McDonald's were denied the right to a fair trial because they were refused funding.

The ECHR also held that a lack of procedural fairness and equality violated Helen Steel and David Morris's right to freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights.


The pair were sued by McDonald's in 1990 for their involvement in distributing leaflets attacking its working practices and policies.


The company was represented by senior and junior counsel throughout the trial - the longest in English legal history. The defendants represented themselves with only sporadic help from barristers and solicitors acting on a pro bono basis.


The ECHR said: 'The denial of legal aid to the applicants had deprived them of the opportunity to present their case effectively before the court and contributed to an unacceptable inequality of arms with McDonald's.'


Mark Stephens, partner at Finers Stephens Innocent, who advised the campaigners, said the first trial was 'inherently unfair and offensive to our notions of fair play and justice. The playing field on which the libel match was played was so tilted that it was impossible for [the defendants] to win.'


He anticipated that as a result of this ruling legal aid will have to be introduced for defendants in libel actions. The Department for Constitutional Affairs said it was considering the ruling.