Mclibel is generally known as a threshold to the change of Defamation Act 1952 and produced the Defamation Act 2013. The background of this case is that many pamphlets called ‘What’s wrong with McDonald’ were distributed to the public. McDonald’s decided to take a libel action against two middle class individuals, namely Helen Steel and Dave Morris to stop criticism. It is a vital case because it showed significant shortcomings in the Defamation Act 1952. However, since the Mclibel case occurred, it has illustrated the weakness and impediment of the old Defamation Act. This essay will firstly examine the influence of the Mclibel case which has the dominant impact on the reform of the old Defamation Act, followed by an analysis of the Defamation Act 2013 and how this Act is effective in this era.
There were significant legal aspects to consider when looking at the Mclibel case. Not only did this case reflect the inequitable parties, but
…show more content…
To begin with, Mullis and Scott (2014) point out that this is the end of the presumption of jury trial because this section was reformed to be without a jury unless under the court’s discretion, the court orders the trial to be tried with the jury. Consequently, the libel proceeding is heard by only the judge nowadays. It seems obvious that, this modification might bring about the reduction of the litigation cost in addition to the shorter time of legal proceedings. However, in the Mclibel case, there was also no jury in the trial; however, it was the longest case in the UK legal history. As a result, while the Defamation Act 2013 has been reformed in practical issues to be without a jury trial, not enough thought has gone into the ramification of the Mclibel case. Hence, the abolition of the jury trials might not be effective law in terms of the time reaching a