Grave Threat to Civil Liberties in the UK
A freeB.E.A.G.L.E.S. briefing – for more info contact  info@freebeagles.org

The government has recently tabled two amendments to the Serious Organised Crime Bill currently going through Parliament and due to become law by May 2005. These are breathtaking assaults on civil liberties. The laws have been presented to the public – via a compliant media - as necessary to prevent animal rights extremism. They go much further than this, however, and criminalise ordinary protest activity such as consumer boycotts or even handing out leaflets to the public.

The government tactics are a classic example of divide and rule. They are demonizing one section of the protest movement - animal rights activists – in order to bring in laws which amount to a denial of the most basic human rights. This is not just an animal rights issue – it is an issue for everyone concerned about their human rights. Rarely have the words of Pastor Niemoller been so true – first they came for the Muslims, now they are coming animal rights people, but it will not stop there.

Anyone serious about the exercise of basic civil liberties ought to be concerned about these new laws. Their effect is to turn minor public order offences, as well as many acts which are not even against the law, into serious criminal offences, if they are carried out as part of a protest against animal research. In short the government is seeking to criminalise virtually all forms of effective protest against vivisection.

As they are currently worded, the new laws focus on ‘protecting’ animal research institutions and do not apply to other protest groups. However, this is a slippery slope and opens a door that should be kept firmly shut for everyone’s sake. Just as the Terrorism Act is being used against groups other than was originally intended. so these amendments will undoubtedly be broadened in the future to provide “protection”: for other industries. The amendments include a section allowing the laws to be widened so as to include other campaign groups by Order of the Secretary of State - ie without the need for this to go through the normal Parliamentary process.

Since coming to power, the Labour government has been steadily criminalising protest. Now more than ever, we need to stand up and start resisting. To put it in context, many will have heard the great news that the “McLibel Two” won their case in the European Courts. Under the proposed new laws an animal research organisation would not have to go to the libel courts to stop someone handing out leaflets – they would just have them arrested, nullifying the achievements for free speech achieved by McLibel. Even drawing attention to issues would potentially be criminalised.

Below we give a more detailed discussion of the proposed amendments and their implications. However, even you do not read it, you can still take action. The government is seeking to get this through by creating an ‘animal rights’ bogyman. We need to change the focus of the debate to what this really is, an attack on fundamental human rights and an issue for everyone.


What you can do
1. Get out and protest – think up of an action which will highlight these issues and get busy.

2. Write to your MP and demand they act to protect your civil liberties. Make a point of visiting them in their surgeries and demand that they stand up and fight for your liberties.

3. Contact your local newspapers and highlight this threat. These issues really do need the oxygen of publicity in every forum possible.

4. Contact organisations such as Liberty, Amnesty and encourage them to act on their mandate to fight for our basic human rights, and not be blinded by the divide and rule tactics of the government.

Feel free to distribute this briefing to relevant parties; why not show the following in- depth look at the implications to MPs and so on.

An in-depth look at the amendments

Both amendments are aimed at protecting animal research organisations and criminalising protest activity by animal rights campaigners. The first is defined as “Interference with contractual relationships so as to harm an animal research organisation”. The second is defined as “Intimidation of persons connected with animal research organisation”.

The most controversial aspect of the new laws is that they criminalise “torts”. A tort can best be defined as anything which gives rise to a cause of action in the civil courts. The term "tortious conduct" means conduct contrary to civil law. Most people will be familiar with some torts such as trespass and libel. Others such as the torts of “nuisance” and “interference with a lawful contract” will be less familiar.

Torts differ from crimes in that they are committed by individuals against other individuals, whereas crimes are committed against the state. So when someone is held liable for committing a tort, they cannot be imprisoned and Courts can only order them to pay damages to the other party or to comply with an Order (for example an Order not to trespass on land). You can only be sent to prison in civil proceedings if you fail to comply with an order made by the court. The new laws, however, will turn tortious actions themselves in to criminal offences, if they are carried out with the intention of causing loss or damage to an animal research organisation.

The scale of this assault on civil liberties cannot be underestimated, given the large number of “torts” which can be committed. For example a noisy demonstration outside a company’s premises could amount to the tort of “private nuisance”. Handing out an offensive leaflet could be held to be defamatory and hence also a civil wrong, as could trespassing on someone’s property. Consumer boycotts are also caught by the terms of the new laws, as these could potentially amount to the tort of “interference with a lawful contract”. All of these acts - which are not currently against the law - would become punishable by up to 5 years’ imprisonment if done with the intention of harming an animal research organisation.

The new laws are probably not compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, which regards the freedoms of expression and of association as particularly important. The High Court of England and Wales has held that the right to freedom of expression includes the right to impart ideas which others may find offensive or objectionable and this approach has been consistently upheld by the European Court of Human Rights. The domestic and European Courts have also consistently maintained that any interference by the state with the rights to freedom of expression and assembly must be no greater than is necessary to protect the rights of others. These principals have clearly not been applied to the new laws, under which one could be sent to prison for up to 5 years for simply handing out a leaflet.

The rationale behind this is as follows. Many suppliers and customers of Huntingdon Life Sciences have been successful in obtaining injunctions (Orders) in the High Court. Similar Orders have been granted to Oxford University and to a guinea pig breeding farm in Staffordshire which is the target on an animal rights campaign. These Orders prevent people from carrying out acts which are contrary to civil law - such as harassing another individual, speaking on a megaphone (nuisance) and trespassing on private property. Breach of such an Order is punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment. Part of the government’s stated reason for bringing in the new laws is to extend this kind of protection to all suppliers and customers of animal research organisations.

Over the past couple of years the government has been doing its utmost to demonise animal rights protestors, and there is a reason behind this. Whenever the government brings in controversial legislation attacking human rights, they nearly always use a controversial group or “bogey man” to justify it. Once the legislation becomes law, however, it is used as widely as possible.

With anti-social behaviour Orders, for example, the justification was youths on housing estates. Now these Orders are being used against all and sundry. With the proposed new internment powers the justification is Muslim extremists - but the law is drafted widely enough to cover any UK citizen. The new laws protecting animal research organisations are justified by the supposed need to control animal rights extremists. Once they become law however, it can only be a matter of time before they are extended to other protest groups as well. The police are already complaining that the laws are not drafted widely enough and should cover all areas of protest, and this government takes pride in the fact that it has given the police all the powers they require. So protestors who are not sympathetic to the tactics used by certain animal rights activists have much to fear from this legislation, as their campaign could well be next.

The new laws are hardly democratic. There has been no public consultation at all. MPs have been given about two hours in which to debate them in the House of Commons and a similar amount of time or less will be allotted in the House of Lords. The government is rushing the amendments through Parliament in order to get them on to the statute books before the next general election in May thereby appeasing its paymasters in the pharmaceutical industry.

The first of the new laws is defined as follows:
“ Interference with contractual relationships so as to harm an animal
research organisation
‘(1) A person (A) commits an offence if, with the intention of harming an animal research organisation, he—
(a) does a relevant act, or =
(b) threatens that he or somebody else will do a relevant act,

in circumstances in which that act or threat is intended or likely to cause
a second person (B) to take any of the steps in subsection (2).

(2) The steps are—

(a) not to perform any contractual obligation owed by B to a third person © (whether or not such non-performance amounts to a breach of contract);
(b) to terminate any contract B has with C;
© not to enter into a contract with C.

(3) For the purposes of this section, a “relevant act” is—
(a) an act amounting to a criminal offence, or
(b) a tortious act causing B to suffer loss or damage of any description.

(4) For the purposes of this section, “contract” includes any other arrangement (and “contractual” is to be read accordingly).
(5) For the purposes of this section, to “harm” an animal research organisation means—

(a) to cause the organisation to suffer loss or damage of any description, or
(b) to prevent or hinder the carrying out by the organisation of any of its activities.

(6) This section does not apply to any act done wholly or mainly in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.

(7) In subsection (6) “trade dispute” has the same meaning as in Part 4 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52), except that section 218 of that Act shall be read as if—

(a) it made provision corresponding to section 244(4) of that Act, and
(b) in subsection (5), the definition of “worker” included any person falling within paragraph (b) of the definition of “worker” in section” 244(5).’

The law is clearly designed to criminalise the activities of groups like SHAC, SPEAK and SNGP. It could even criminalise campaigns by groups like Uncaged who encourage consumer boycotts of groups owned by or linked to animal research organisations.

The following example demonstrates the width of the new laws. The SHAC campaign publishes on its website the details of a gas supplier - eg BOC - encouraging its supporters to write and legally protest against BOC’s involvement with Huntingdon Life Sciences. This may soon become a criminal offence under the new law, as the following analysis shows.

Firstly the prosecution would have to show that the intention behind publishing the details on the website were to harm an animal research organisation. “Harm” is defined at paragraph 5 as causing it loss or damage of any description OR preventing or hindering the carrying out by the organisation of any of its activities. This is extremely wide. It would clearly cover this kind of publication where the stated aim of the group is to close down an animal research organisation. But it could also be used where the intention was simply to draw attention to animal suffering at Huntingdon Life Sciences , as the intention would be to hinder the carrying out of vivisection at the laboratory.

Secondly SHAC must have done or threatened a “relevant act”. This is defined as any criminal act or any “tortious” act causing the second person (eg a BOC employee) to suffer loss or damage.

There is one tort in particular known as “interfering with a lawful contract”. This can be committed if you persuade someone to break their contract with someone else. It has been argued several times in the harassment injunction cases against SHAC et al that the SHAC campaign is unlawful (contrary to civil law) as it seeks to interfere with lawful contracts. Although this has never been ruled on a by a judge, there is a strong possibility that publishing the article in the example would be deemed by a court to be tortious for this reason. In fact even the most peaceful of protest behaviour against a supplier or customer could become a criminal offence under the new law, as such protest would be deemed to be interfering with a lawful contract.

Other tortious acts could include handing out defamatory leaflets (eg a banner or leaflet saying “BOC profits from animal torture”), noise nuisance (eg use of drums / megaphones on a demo) and trespass.

The “tort” must also cause the second party (eg BOC) to suffer loss or damage of any description. So if BOC has to employ extra security measures as a result of the publication then this part of the offence would be satisfied.

A "relevant act" could also be any act amounting to a criminal offence. So if someone simply speaks on a megaphone during the course of a supplier demo or shouts something offensive they could be committing an offence under the new law punishable by up to 5 years.

Thirdly the act must be intended or likely to cause the third person (eg BOC) not to perform a contractual obligation owed to a third party or to terminate any such contract or not to enter in to one. So this part of the offence would be complete if a court were satisfied that the act was likely to have this effect, even if this were not the intention behind it. In the example, SHAC might say that their intention was to draw BOC’s attention to animal cruelty rather than to cause BOC to sever their contract with HLS. This would be of little avail, however, if a court were satisfied that the termination of the contract was a likely outcome of the website publication.

This section is also defined widely enough to cover “tertiary” targeting - that is, targeting companies two steps removed from the animal research organisation - such as a letter asking shareholders of BOC to sell their shares. And the term “contract” is defined as “any arrangement” between the two parties.

So it seems that something as inoffensive as a website article encouraging people to highlight the cruelty of animal research to a customer of a laboratory could amount to an offence under the new law. It could even criminalise consumer boycotts if these are related to animal research.

The second of the proposed new laws against animal rights protestors is as follows.
“Intimidation of persons connected with animal research organisation—
‘(1) A person (A) commits an offence if, with the intention of causing a second person (B) to abstain from doing something which B is entitled to do (or to do something which B is entitled to abstain from doing)—
(a) A threatens B that A or somebody else will do a relevant act, and
(b) A does so wholly or mainly because B is a person falling within subsection (2).

(2) A person falls within this subsection if he is—

(a) an employee or officer of an animal research organisation;
(b) a student at an educational establishment that is an animal research organisation;
(c) a lessor or licensor of any premises occupied by an animal research organisation;
(d) a person with a financial interest in an animal research organisation;
(e) a customer or supplier of an animal research organisation;
(f) a person who is contemplating becoming someone within paragraph ©, (d) or (e);
(g) a person who is, or is contemplating becoming, a customer or supplier of someone within paragraph ©, (d), (e) or (f);
(h) an employee or officer of someone within paragraph ©, (d), (e), (f) or (g);
(i) a person with a financial interest in someone within paragraph ©, (d), (e), (f) or (g);
(j) a spouse, civil partner, friend or relative of, or a person who is known personally to, someone within any of paragraphs (a) to (i);
(k) a person who is, or is contemplating becoming, a customer or supplier of someone within paragraph (a), (b), (h), (i) or (j); or
(l) an employer of someone within paragraph (j).

(3) For the purposes of this section an “officer” of an animal research organisation or a person includes—

(a) where the organisation or person is a body corporate, a director, manager or secretary
(b) where the organisation or person is a charity, a charity trustee (within the meaning of the Charities Act 1993);

(c) where the organisation or person is a partnership, a partner.

(4) For the purposes of this section—

(a) a person is a customer or supplier of another person if he purchases goods, services or facilities from, or (as the case may be) supplies goods, services or facilities to, that other; and
(b) “supplier” includes a person who supplies services in pursuance of any enactment that requires or authorises such services to be provided.

(5) For the purposes of this section, a “relevant act” is—

(a) an act amounting to a criminal offence, or
(b) a tortious act causing B or another person to suffer loss or damage of any description.

(6) The Secretary of State may by order amend this section so as to include within subsection (2) any description of persons framed by reference to their connection with—

(a) an animal research organisation, or
(b) any description of persons for the time being mentioned in that subsection.

(7) This section does not apply to any act done wholly or mainly in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.

(8) In subsection (7) “trade dispute” has the meaning given by section
(Interference with contractual relations so as to harm animal research
organisation).’”

The first ingredient of this offence is that a person must threaten another person that they will do a relevant act. A relevant act is defined - as with the other new offence - as any crime or any tortious act which causes another person to suffer damage or loss of any description.

Secondly this threat must be carried out because the person against whom the threat is made falls in to one of the categories defined in paragraph (2). These categories include various people who are connected in some way to animal research organisations, even if they are not directly related. For example it includes suppliers of customers of an animal research laboratory.

This section appears to be aimed at situations where a company or individual are told that they will be targeted if they continue to do business with an animal research organisation. There are overlaps with the first new offence, but it appears to be aimed at situations where someone is targeted because of their connection to an animal research laboratory, but no contractual relationship exists. The section is also clearly aimed at preventing protest against employees or directors of animal research organisations.

The intention must be to cause someone not to do something they are entitled to do (rather than to cause harm to an animal research organisation). There is no need to show in this case that the act is intended or likely to interfere with a lawful contract. It need only be shown that the threat is carried out because of the person’s connection to the animal research organisation. This would cover protests for example against a friend of an animal researcher, where no actual contractual relationship exists.

So for example a campaign group writes to a friend of a researcher stating that their business is going to be targeted because they are a friend of Mr X. If the letter is deemed to be “tortious” and it causes loss or damage, then the offence could have been committed. The letter could be tortious if, for example, it is libellous of Mr X or if it is deemed to be civil harassment.

The government has said that these laws are not designed to prevent peaceful protest, but clearly this is their exact purpose. They have supplied the media with false and misleading examples of acts which they say are not currently against the law - such as paint-strippering cars and sending defamatory letters - and stated that the new laws are designed to stop this kind of activity. The mainstream media has duly obliged and reproduced the government lies as fact. This kind of process seems to accompany the introduction of most controversial government legislation, and now seems to be the norm with any laws aimed at animal rights protest.

The consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions (head of the Crown Prosecution Service) will be required for any prosecution and in reality trivial breaches are not likely to be prosecuted. It is more likely that the police will generally use it as a tool to threaten and intimidate protestors from certain campaign groups. The new offence is punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment making it an arrestable offence. This confers on the police powers of arrest, search and detention which are not available for many public order offences (See:  http://www.freebeagles.org/articles/Legal_Booklet_4/lb4-11.html#2)

The situation under the new laws will probably be akin to the current police tactics enforcing the various injunctions protecting animal research organisations and their customers and suppliers. These are mostly used by the police as an additional arrest power; where protestors are arrested for breaching an injunction, charges are usually dropped at a later stage or reduced to something less serious. The people who have most to fear from the new laws are those who are deemed to be the organisers of the SHAC, SPEAK and SNGP campaigns. There seems to be little doubt that these campaigns would, in their current form, become criminal under the new law.

The latest version of the amendments in the Bill is here:
 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldbills/024/05024.103-109.html#jRC03

The most recent - and probably only - debate on the law in the House of Commons took place on 7th February 2005 and can be found here:
 http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200405/cmhansrd/cm050207/debtext/50207-25.htm