'McLibel' trial loses taste for dramatic on day 245

They have been at it for 245 days - and it shows. The judge in Britain's longest civil court case, the McLibel trial, struggles to keep his exasperation at bay with kindly smiles.

But Richard Rampton QC, counsel for McDonald's, is unsmiling in his testy interventions. Within seconds of David Morris, one of the defendants, beginning his halting, "um"-laced cross-examination of the hamburger giant's top man in Britain yesterday, Mr Rampton rose. "He's already playing to the gallery," he complained.

The "McLibel two", Mr Morris and Helen Steel, had urged the press to attend the High Court in London yesterday to hear their resumed cross examination of Paul Preston, president and chief executive of the corporation's 674 UK restaurants. He was last on the stand almost two years ago.

But if day 245 was meant to be a courtroom drama, then it was a bad one - overwritten, lacking pace, and hard to pick up the plot (unless some malign twist of fate had compelled you to spend the previous 244 days in court).

"No, just pause there, this is going to be hopeless," interjected Mr Justice Bell. It was the first of several such interjections.

Next month will see the second anniversary of the case.More than 500 thick, bound files now line the walls of Court 35 laden with transcripts.

McDonald's claims Mr Morris, a 42-year-old single parent, and Ms Steel, aged 30, were leading lights in the publication and distribution of a leaflet which said eating McDonald's food could cause bowel and breast cancer and heart disease.

The leaflet also alleged staff at the chain were exploited, ill-paid and would be dismissed if they tried to join a trade union, and that the production of McDonald's food caused hunger in the Third World and the destruction of rainforests. At the top of the leaflet were the words: "McCancer, McDisease, McHunger and McDeath."

The defendants, both unemployed and reliant on state benefits, deny publishing the leaflet but argue that its contents are true. They have counterclaimed against McDonald's, claiming that a "McFact" sheet about their action libelled them.

With no legal aid they are defending themselves. A global support network has sprung up with a "McSpotlight" site on the Internet boasting 1,800 files covering the case.

For the McLibel two the longer the case goes on the better. Some of the 180 witnesses have given evidence that paints McDonald's in a grim light and it makes them look like David's fighting a corporate Goliath.

For McDonald's, the only prize is for the judge to find against the defendants and decide the allegations were untrue when the case eventually ends, perhaps later this year. It will have cost the chain several million pounds and there is no prospect of recovering any worthwhile damages.

Yesterday, the defendants pointed to what they said were conflicts between witness statements and "McFacts" published by McDonald's, and asked the UK president to admit the latter were lies.

But Mr Preston, an American who helped run Britain's first McDonald's 21 years ago, stonewalled. "I don't lie, there's no future in that," he said. He did admit one mistake - claims from McDonald's that it had written to the defendants asking them to desist before issuing writs in 1990. "I'm sorry for that," he said.