The British Court of Appeal has cut libel damages awarded to McDonald’s, the world’s largest fast-food chain, against two penniless environment campaigners.
In 1997, the High Court in London found that environmental campaigners Helen Steel, aged 34, and Dave Morris, 44, were guilty of distributing a pamphlet containing allegations against McDonald’s and their fast food and its preparation. The trial lasted three years and brought to light much evidence about the way McDonald’s hamburger chain workers prepared, handled and served food, and the treatment of these workers by the American-owned company. The High Court in London awarded McDonald’s damages of 60, 000 pounds (RMB 780,000) against the two penniless campaigners.
But in 1999, three Appeal Court Judges in London decided that the two defendants found guilty of libel against McDonald’s in 1997 would have the damages they have to pay to McDonald’s reduced to 40,000 poun
A. Because it has to face another $200,000 legal bill.
B. Because it was wrongly treated by the Appeal Court Judges.
C. Because the result will make McDonald’s further lose face.
D. Because the Court announced the two defendants innocent of libel.
我来回答: