Harrods injunction case protestors vindicated + the protests continue
Paul Gravett | 19.06.2006 20:40 | Animal Liberation | London | World
On Monday June 12th the court case involving Harrods, Europe’s largest department store, and three anti-fur activists along with the campaign group CAFT (Coalition to Abolish to the Fur Trade), was concluded at High Court in London. This follows six months of legal action and four high court hearings
Following regular protests at the store in Knightsbridge London which began last October, Harrods applied to the High Court in December last year for an injunction under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Their application was for a 10 metre exclusion zone around the store, which would have pushed the protests across the road, and a ban on the use of megaphones, effectively ending the protests
The three campaigners named attended the first High Court hearing on December 21st to contest the application, two of them had been awarded Legal Aid so we had a barrister in court on our behalf, it was the first time animal rights activists had been granted Legal Aid in these cases.
The case was adjourned and a temporary injunction was granted, but it was roughly in line with how the protests were being organised anyway. Although the 10 metre zone was granted, it allowed three protesters at each entrance, and there are 12 separate entrances to this huge building.
At a subsequent hearing in January, we successfully applied to have the zone reduced to five metres, which meant the protests really were exactly as they were before they brought the case to court. We had as many as we wanted on the pedestrianised area in front of the store, and three people by each door to leaflet shoppers entering the building.
At another hearing in March, it was ordered that megaphones could be used for 15 minutes in each half hour period. In fact this was easily more than megaphones were being used in any case.
However Harrods were still applying for the original 10 metre no protest zone and a ban on megaphones. A five day trial was planned to begin on Monday June 10th. A trial this long would cost hundreds of thousands, and the judge urged both sides to come to an agreement. It was clear that an injunction of some description would be granted, the only question was what would be the terms of the injunction, and who would have to pay the costs of the case which were already estimated at over £150,000.
In May, whilst awaiting the trial, the defendants received a new bundle of evidence which revealed that two people who had recently joined the protests were in fact undercover agents working for Harrods. They had been secretly filming the protesters for several weeks, and had even attended a meeting, and travelled on the coach to the Speak demo in Oxford on April 22nd.
Once again their tactics backfired. The evidence produced by the undercover agents was so innocuous, that it helped our case rather than theirs, in that it showed us to be peaceful and reasonable. At the same time it revealed the underhand and desperate measures which Harrods were willing to employ to stop the protests.
At a legal conference just ten days before the trial was due to begin, Harrods and the three individual campaigners agreed that the conditions of the Order would stay basically as they are at present. Harrods agreed to pay their own costs, put at well over £100,000, as well as a proportion of the costs of the defence. It was agreed the Injunction would expire after two years after which they would have to make a further application.
After over six months of legal action, four High Court hearings and a mountain of documentation, film footage and photos, an order was granted which basically allows the protests to continue as they had when the protests began last October.
Harrods remains the last department store in the UK to stock real fur, five years after Parliament banned fur farming. Last winter Harrods stocked a wide range of fur coats, fur trim and fur boots and other accessories. Animals used to make fur at Harrods included mink, blue fox, silver fox, musquash, rabbit, beaver, wolf, coyote, chinchilla and squirrel.
Throughout this the protests have continued as before. The fact that Harrods have spent hundreds of thousands on legal action, increased security and even employing undercover agents, is an illustration of how effective the campaign has been so far.
Support the campaign.
Please support the campaign by contacting Harrods politely (see below), and by joining the regular protests at the store in Knightsbridge. Protests take place most Saturdays at the store from 11am, you can contribute by attending for an hour or the whole afternoon.
From the CAFT website
http://www.caft.org.uk/harrods/harrods.htm
Regular Protests at Harrods
Anti-Fur protesters have been holding frequent demos at Harrods department store in London. CAFT is campaiging to persuade Harrods to cut its ties with the fur trade. Harrods is now the only major department store in the UK which sells fur, following decisions by rivals Harvey Nichols, Selfridges and Liberty to stop selling fur and adopt a fur-free policy.
We have produced a range of placards (see right), and a leaflet of which tens of thousands have already been distributed to shoppers and tourists going into the store. A supporter has made a big banner for us which is becoming a regular sight outside the store in Knightsbridge.
Protesters will be returning to Harrods on a regular basis to remind the public of the stores ties with the fur trade. If you are interested in getting involved, contact CAFT
Meanwhile please take action. Politely email, phone, fax, write to Harrods to request that it takes the compassionate decision to once again stop the sale of all real animal fur and reinstate its fur-free policy. Remember to point out that fur farming is illegal in the UK, so they should come into line with the wishes of the British public and the democratic will of Parliament.
If you get any replies please forward them to us.
Harrods Ltd 87-135 Brompton Road
Knightsbridge
London SW1X 7XL
Telephone 020 7730 1234
Fax 020 7581 0470
customer.services@harrods.com
Harrods Corporate Service
corporate.service@harrods
+44 (0)20 7225 5843
Other email addresses
Ladies.fashion@harrods.com
service@harrods-casino.com
direct.mail@harrods.com
The three campaigners named attended the first High Court hearing on December 21st to contest the application, two of them had been awarded Legal Aid so we had a barrister in court on our behalf, it was the first time animal rights activists had been granted Legal Aid in these cases.
The case was adjourned and a temporary injunction was granted, but it was roughly in line with how the protests were being organised anyway. Although the 10 metre zone was granted, it allowed three protesters at each entrance, and there are 12 separate entrances to this huge building.
At a subsequent hearing in January, we successfully applied to have the zone reduced to five metres, which meant the protests really were exactly as they were before they brought the case to court. We had as many as we wanted on the pedestrianised area in front of the store, and three people by each door to leaflet shoppers entering the building.
At another hearing in March, it was ordered that megaphones could be used for 15 minutes in each half hour period. In fact this was easily more than megaphones were being used in any case.
However Harrods were still applying for the original 10 metre no protest zone and a ban on megaphones. A five day trial was planned to begin on Monday June 10th. A trial this long would cost hundreds of thousands, and the judge urged both sides to come to an agreement. It was clear that an injunction of some description would be granted, the only question was what would be the terms of the injunction, and who would have to pay the costs of the case which were already estimated at over £150,000.
In May, whilst awaiting the trial, the defendants received a new bundle of evidence which revealed that two people who had recently joined the protests were in fact undercover agents working for Harrods. They had been secretly filming the protesters for several weeks, and had even attended a meeting, and travelled on the coach to the Speak demo in Oxford on April 22nd.
Once again their tactics backfired. The evidence produced by the undercover agents was so innocuous, that it helped our case rather than theirs, in that it showed us to be peaceful and reasonable. At the same time it revealed the underhand and desperate measures which Harrods were willing to employ to stop the protests.
At a legal conference just ten days before the trial was due to begin, Harrods and the three individual campaigners agreed that the conditions of the Order would stay basically as they are at present. Harrods agreed to pay their own costs, put at well over £100,000, as well as a proportion of the costs of the defence. It was agreed the Injunction would expire after two years after which they would have to make a further application.
After over six months of legal action, four High Court hearings and a mountain of documentation, film footage and photos, an order was granted which basically allows the protests to continue as they had when the protests began last October.
Harrods remains the last department store in the UK to stock real fur, five years after Parliament banned fur farming. Last winter Harrods stocked a wide range of fur coats, fur trim and fur boots and other accessories. Animals used to make fur at Harrods included mink, blue fox, silver fox, musquash, rabbit, beaver, wolf, coyote, chinchilla and squirrel.
Throughout this the protests have continued as before. The fact that Harrods have spent hundreds of thousands on legal action, increased security and even employing undercover agents, is an illustration of how effective the campaign has been so far.
Support the campaign.
Please support the campaign by contacting Harrods politely (see below), and by joining the regular protests at the store in Knightsbridge. Protests take place most Saturdays at the store from 11am, you can contribute by attending for an hour or the whole afternoon.
From the CAFT website
http://www.caft.org.uk/harrods/harrods.htm Regular Protests at Harrods
Anti-Fur protesters have been holding frequent demos at Harrods department store in London. CAFT is campaiging to persuade Harrods to cut its ties with the fur trade. Harrods is now the only major department store in the UK which sells fur, following decisions by rivals Harvey Nichols, Selfridges and Liberty to stop selling fur and adopt a fur-free policy.
We have produced a range of placards (see right), and a leaflet of which tens of thousands have already been distributed to shoppers and tourists going into the store. A supporter has made a big banner for us which is becoming a regular sight outside the store in Knightsbridge.
Protesters will be returning to Harrods on a regular basis to remind the public of the stores ties with the fur trade. If you are interested in getting involved, contact CAFT
Meanwhile please take action. Politely email, phone, fax, write to Harrods to request that it takes the compassionate decision to once again stop the sale of all real animal fur and reinstate its fur-free policy. Remember to point out that fur farming is illegal in the UK, so they should come into line with the wishes of the British public and the democratic will of Parliament.
If you get any replies please forward them to us.
Harrods Ltd 87-135 Brompton Road
Knightsbridge
London SW1X 7XL
Telephone 020 7730 1234
Fax 020 7581 0470
customer.services@harrods.com Harrods Corporate Service
corporate.service@harrods
+44 (0)20 7225 5843
Other email addresses
Ladies.fashion@harrods.com service@harrods-casino.com direct.mail@harrods.com
Paul Gravett
Additions
re: Lawyer
20.06.2006 11:57
The original lawyer was Timothy Lawson-Cruttenden of Lawson-Cruttenden & Co - the "market leader in obtaining ground breaking injunctions" (see www.harassment.co.uk). But he messed up and Harrods fired them as after spending loads of money all they'd really managed to achieve was to confirm the protestors the right to what they were doing already.
It was clear from the material that the case was the most tenuous of all the injunctions as there was next to no evidence in support of the contention that Harrods or its people were being harassed. Thus the only conclusion was that Harrods was more interested in suppression protest itself.
The lawyers who stepped into the gapping hole left by the firing of Lawson-Cruttenden was a company called Lewis Silkin - see www.lewissilking.com
If you want to take out an injunction to suppress protest with the 'market leaders' then contact Tim or his sidekick Melanie K Loram at the above firm at tim@harassment.co.uk or mel@harassment.co.uk They'll be happy to sell you an injunction, though watch out, as they can be a bit pricey - Tim charges up to £500 per hour for his services and a single hearing can put you back £50K.
Harrods is the second injunction brought under the Protection From Harassment Act against protestors to have collapsed, and follows on from the case of EDO MBM Ltd, which imploded earlier in the year. So far none of these cases have come to court, partly due, it is alleged in other cases, to procrastination techniques by Lawson-Cruttenden & Co.
It was clear from the material that the case was the most tenuous of all the injunctions as there was next to no evidence in support of the contention that Harrods or its people were being harassed. Thus the only conclusion was that Harrods was more interested in suppression protest itself.
The lawyers who stepped into the gapping hole left by the firing of Lawson-Cruttenden was a company called Lewis Silkin - see www.lewissilking.com
If you want to take out an injunction to suppress protest with the 'market leaders' then contact Tim or his sidekick Melanie K Loram at the above firm at
tim@harassment.co.uk or mel@harassment.co.uk They'll be happy to sell you an injunction, though watch out, as they can be a bit pricey - Tim charges up to £500 per hour for his services and a single hearing can put you back £50K. Harrods is the second injunction brought under the Protection From Harassment Act against protestors to have collapsed, and follows on from the case of EDO MBM Ltd, which imploded earlier in the year. So far none of these cases have come to court, partly due, it is alleged in other cases, to procrastination techniques by Lawson-Cruttenden & Co.
FTP
Comments
Display the following comment