Skip to content or view screen version

Serious Implications for Freedom of Speech as Activist Jailed for 4.5 years

WARN | 11.06.2008 23:41 | Stop Sequani Animal Testing | SOCPA | Animal Liberation | Repression | Social Struggles | World

WARN Press Release: Serious Implications for Freedom of the Net and Civil Rights as Activist Jailed for 4 ½ Years

For immediate release: June 11th 2008

Following a lengthy police investigation and an 18-week trial costing over £4.5 million, the operator of a website criticising animal testing company Sequani, has been jailed for four and a half years for organising a legal protest.

In an unprecedented case, the press were barred from reporting the trial, witnesses were bussed into the court and mobile phones were even confiscated from the public before they entered the gallery and the jury. The atmosphere was more akin to a terrorist trial than one relating to non-violent protest, which made the charges appear far more sinister than they in fact were. The choice of judge was also considered highly questionable considering he is a keen hunter.

Sean Kirtley was found guilty under Section 145 of the SOCPA law for “Interfering with the contractual relationships of a Laboratory” for allegedly organising protests at Sequani Limited and associated business associates. Police say disorder took place on a occasions during protests and claim as the organiser that Sean is responsible for any criminality that takes place.

The police claimed that during the protests individuals, not Kirtley, had been verbally abusive to staff members and that they had caused them to feel harassed. However, no-one was arrested or charged with such an offence, and prosecution witnesses testified that Kirtley had on most occasions been silent and peaceful throughout protests. Whilst Kirtley contends he did not organise protests at Sequani or its suppliers, he operated a website which effectively campaigned against the company. In a move that will alarm internet publishers and bloggers, posting details of the legal protests and information about Sequani and suppliers was considered key evidence that he was the campaign organiser.

As the supposed organiser of the legal protest, Kirtley has therefore been convicted because of supposed actions by phantom third parties that Sean had conspired with or as the law states “persons unknown”. No evidence was used in the trial that proved he had engaged in anti social behaviour on demonstrations, criminal damage or any other illegal activity.

Kirtley will now be incarcerated for far longer than most dangerous criminals. It appears that after such an expensive and extensive investigation, the CPS needed a conviction to justify such a huge expense of public money. Even then, the sentence passed was unusually severe. Child abusers, rapists and violent criminals are often given far lower sentences for far more serious crimes. In the same week, in two other high-profile cases, a man was given a similar sentence for causing the violent death of his baby son, and two brothers were jailed for only two years for committing serious assault that permanently blinded their victim.

The five other defendants were found not guilty in the, yet the Judge refused to award significant travel costs to them, totalling many thousands of pounds. Even though Pauline Burgess was found not guilty, she was bound over by Judge Ross who prohibited her from joining in the legal protests against the company for a year, and threatened her with a £1000 fine on any occasion that she does.

Aside from the unbelievable sentence, the trial has serious implications for the freedom of the internet and civil liberties in this country.

A precedent has now been set that simply publishing details or sharing information about a protest can be used as evidence that the publisher is the organiser of the event. Worse still, someone can be locked up under SOCPA for an extended period of time for simply organising a legal protest in which, according to hearsay, someone else committed an offence.

Kirtley will be lodging an appeal. Kirtley’s defence lawyer said: “This case sadly goes to show that animal rights campaigners have been singled out and ordinary criminal law principles have been contorted simply because, in the Government’s eyes, powerful commercial interests, founded on animal experimentation, are at risk from effective, open and popular protests.”

We urge the press to cover the case because this is not just an issue of an animal rights protester, whose views we understand many members of the media may not share. But as Voltaire once said: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. We hope that this proves the case today.

Most importantly, the case has serious repercussions on the freedom of publishing protest information on the net and the right to protest peacefully, particularly where commercial interests are concerned.

It is also extremely relevant in the light of upcoming “terror legislation” because it demonstrates mission creep - how the SOCPA law, enacted under the pretext of protecting the public from terrorists, is now being used to silence non-violent protesters.

Notes to Editors

West Mercia Police spent 2% of their budget pursuing the investigation and the trial. In this period, violent crime and robberies increased in 06/07 compared with the previous year.

The trial has been the longest Animal Rights trial in history and has been one of the longest trials West Mercia police have been involved in.

Section 145 of the SOCPA law (2006) is related to the Interfering with the contractual relationships of a Laboratory, which is an extension of the original SOCPA legislation which was enacted in 2005 under the pretext of protecting the government from terrorism. Many believe it was aimed at curtailing the Brian Haw anti-war protest around Westminster. Whilst Haw has remained protesting because of poor drafting of the law, the act itself and criminalisation of individuals prosecuted for unapproved but peaceful protest, has cost the taxpayer tens of millions of pounds. The Act is increasingly being used to prevent those protesting peacefully against the government or commercial interests - peace activists, environmentalists, and animal rights activists being the main targets.

The SSAT website was closed down and a new campaign against animal experimentation at Sequani has been started by other activists –  http://sequani.wordpress.com

Interviews can be arranged with the legal team and campaign press officer by contacting:

Name: Chris Dowdeswell
Tel: 01452 539673 / 07912 039069
Email:  warn@riseup.net

WARN
- Homepage: http://westernanimalrights.wordpress.com

Additions

Actually...

12.06.2008 12:47

We didn't intend for this press release to advocate any prison sentence for any criminal in fact many of our group are opposed to prisons and any other form of state control or intervention in our lives.

We simply wanted to draw comparisons between "violent criminals" and "political" criminals and how the state views these individuals, the press release does not call for longer, shorter or indeed any sentences for criminals guilty, violent or otherwise.

The issue we did hope to highlight was in fact that it is clear from the sentences being handed down that the state believes those who threaten property, big business and the "status quo" are deserving of harsher punishments than those who threaten the lives of others.

I hope this clarifies our position,

Thanks

WARN

WARN
- Homepage: http://westernanimalrights.wordpress.com


Comments

Hide the following 17 comments

Which is more important?

12.06.2008 06:43

Clearly, contractual relationships are considered more important than human life itself here in the UK and animal life doesn't count at all.

To add insult to injury this is what Det Insp Williams says:

"We will do all in our power to ensure that businesses are able to carry out their lawful activities and communities do not have to suffer at the hands of such extremists.

"West Mercia Constabulary also recognises the right of individuals to lawful protest and we will do all in our power to ensure that those rights are upheld."

By lawful he presumably means only with police prior permission, which is sometimes refused. So much for the right to protest in our self-styled democracy.

Itsme


Tabloidism

12.06.2008 09:29


Ok this sentence is outrageous but this kind of Daily Mail stuff (see quote below) really doesn't help you. What are you advocating for the people you refer to instead of the sentences they got? The death penalty? Life without parole?

'Child abusers, rapists and violent criminals are often given far lower sentences for far more serious crimes. In the same week, in two other high-profile cases, a man was given a similar sentence for causing the violent death of his baby son, and two brothers were jailed for only two years for committing serious assault that permanently blinded their victim.'

N


...and

12.06.2008 09:33

..the reality is that most people convicted of anything in Britain at the moment get long sentences. Since Labour came to power in 1997 it has invented 3,000 new criminal offences and the prison population of England and Wales has increased from 61,000 to 79,700. In Scotland it rose from 6,000 to 7,215. Out of every 100,000 people, 148 in England and Wales and 142 in Scotland are now in prison. Britain has more life sentenced prisoners than Germany, France, Russia and Turkey put together.

The tabloid media (and the posh newspapers in a more subtle form) continually bombard us with a complete inversion of this reality so people are convinced that life sentences are short, prisons cushy, asylum seekers never get deported etc etc. To do this and not get sued they latch onto examples such as those you quote, which are in fact the exceptions that prove the rule.

N


Right to protest?

12.06.2008 11:43

What about the right to earn a living free from intimidation and violence? Lock them all up!

Just William


Against property?

12.06.2008 13:33

In the pursuit of their goals to end vivisection this group intimidated people not an act against property...

Targeting peoples personal property, houses and cars, is an act of extreme intimidation intended to instill fear in people and their families.

Some people just need locking up to stop them inflicting hard on others or would you rather innocent people suffer?

Just William


to stop them inflicting hard on others or would you rather the innocent suffe

12.06.2008 15:23

I agree - protect the innocent.

By any means necessary


New Banners - Fight SOCPA

12.06.2008 16:10

Free Sean - Sequani Campaigner & Veganarchist!
Free Sean - Sequani Campaigner & Veganarchist!

Free Sean - Fight SOCPA!
Free Sean - Fight SOCPA!

Links:

1)  http://supportsean.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/myspacebanner.jpg
2)  http://supportsean.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/freeseananimatedbanner.gif

Free Sean!
- Homepage: http://supportsean.wordpress.com


Don't get me wrong...

12.06.2008 16:39

..this conviction IS abhorrent and it is a criminalisation of dissent which affects all protestors and people who speak out and campaign. The govt has deliberately blurred the lines between 'terrorism', 'protest' and 'anti-social behaviour'. Look at the use of ASBOs or stop-and-search powers. I just don't think that the 'violent criminals get treated better' is a useful campaigning tactic. British prisons do not treat anyone well and prisoners do not come out 'better people'. Whatever your views on imprisonment, doing this kind of version of a Daily Mail headline isn't helpful. What is wrong with 'Outrage - peaceful protester imprisoned for actions he wasn't even at'? Why the need to go into this 'scum assault people and get away with it...'

N


All protest?

12.06.2008 17:59

We are all aware of how grassroots animal rights organisations work but people like yourself want everyone believe the fluffy front of legal protest... This is not infact the reality of what goes on with grassroots animal rights campaigns.

You have the public face that you all like to promote but in private you all subscribe to all forms of extremeist activity if it's in the name of animal liberation! You only have to spend a few hours in the company of animal rights activists to realise whats going on behind the scene. It's not hard to rub shoulders with activists you only have to turn up at ARC meetings, demos and AR gatherings to get your face recognised, thats when the true activist shows themselves. Everyone revels in the fact that people like Curry are willing to put lives in danger by planting explosive devices on their doorsteps!

These campaigns are designed to target people from all angles, from legal demos to the sort of tactics nutters like Curry get upto! Conspracy was the charge and I for one am sure that Kirtley knew exactly what was going on with this campaign and just sat back and watched it all unfold, I think they call it joint enterprise...

The sentence reflected the crime and I'm sure your support campaign will help keep him firmly locked away in a secure enviroment for as long as possible.

Just William


Re: Just William

12.06.2008 22:15

So what your trying to say is that the following is justified:

Person A) Starts a campaign against an animal testing laboratory, listing suppliers and customers and organising demonstrations - all legal and organised even with police.

Person B) Sees the campaign picking up speed, and seizes the opportunity to further the campaign for the benefit of the animals, not Person A, or any other entities.

Person A) Then gets locked up because Person B has committed illegal crimes, even though they have clearly stated they don't advocate or encourage any activity that Person B was involved in.

Person B) Is still FREE and continues to cause criminal damage, if not more so to make up for the fact that Person A has been imprisoned for actions taken by themselves.

So locking campaigners up doesn't only NOT work, but is also counter-productive. Why? Because you can't legally act as Person A anymore, making anyone who wants to try and make any form of change turn into Person B - the more "dangerous" individual.

We would probably have to lock up Martin Luther King for saying stuff like "Malcom X will stop when the violence stops" or for pointing out that non-violence was only as effective as molotov throwing anarchists. He should have been imprisoned (or be imprisoned now) for anything the BLA and BPP were involved in and never got caught for. If you think this is justified that is.......

(A)


?

13.06.2008 00:45

It's very simple to see what's going on here but your view of the whole campaign and trial is clouded. When you enter into organising group demos you leave yourself wide open if after the first demo that intimidation or damage was committed you didn't make steps to make sure it didn't happen again. Instead Kirtley continued to arrange and take part in illegal demos putting his rubber stamp on the illegal activity, joint enterprise. If not for the hard hitting direct action campaigns we wouldn't be debating this issue would we?

Animal rights activists have gone around for many year targeting and attacking people using different lables to fit the acts of intimidation. Company details are put up with the aim to disrupt and the disclaimer is worth nothing. Campaign organisers welcome the nutters sending abusive and threatening mail and emails.

Now the law is trying to stop these types of campaigns you cry badly done to yet you forget about the people who suffer at the hands of these campaign tactics. Threats, paint stripped cars, fire bombs and house windows smashed in the dead of night are just some of the things that happen all welcomed and infact hoped for, not legal demos.

You all love the intimidation but how loud you cry when the shit hits the fan and paback comes your way!

Maybe you should think about the human rights of the victims of animal rights activists?

Just William


Yes I have thought about it.

13.06.2008 05:04

"Maybe you should think about the human rights of the victims of animal rights activists?"

You mean people who take part in, or actively condone, or are implicated in, or employed for the torture or serious ill treatment of animals? Yes, they deserve everything they get. Its their choice. Just because the State doesn't consider their appalling behaviour to be illegal and put profit before animal welfare first doesn't make it right or in any way acceptable to people who do care about animals. In the same way that torture of humans is illegal so it should be for animals.

Itsme


Thats not fair William...

13.06.2008 15:16

"...if after the first demo that intimidation or damage was committed you didn't make steps to make sure it didn't happen again."

What you're trying to say is that organisers should be responsible for POLICING their group, and if necessary, use VIOLENCE against any individuals to prevent "intimidation" against workers of a company? Sounds like these organisers should be given batons incase there is an activist armed with some spraypaint! Afterall, they are entirely responsible you say.

Back to reality, what are the cops for if they aren't policing and using violence to prevent intimidation? You can't have it both ways.

Simon


b*****ks william

13.06.2008 19:30

Dear William,good that you identify with the state and maybe yourself but the amount of misinformation on this trial I cannot believe.No damage to property can be attributed to Sean.No criminal damage charges.No cars interfered with in any way etc.etc. No one was followed home.So if you get your nose out of `The Register` trough of right wing opinions then you may be able to understand why the press have not picked up on this debacle of justice.The justice system IS the conspirator,or has increasingly become so, as demonstrated at this trial. The appeal will I am sure clear the muddied waters of this,at the moment it seems,tide of repression brought about by the repressive SOCPA 2005 s,145 act. READ IT.

al asitis


Simon...

14.06.2008 19:10

"What you're trying to say is that organisers should be responsible for POLICING their group, and if necessary, use VIOLENCE against any individuals to prevent "intimidation" against workers of a company? Sounds like these organisers should be given batons incase there is an activist armed with some spraypaint! Afterall, they are entirely responsible you say.

Back to reality, what are the cops for if they aren't policing and using violence to prevent intimidation? You can't have it both ways."

To be charged with section 145 you would need to have committed a tort or a criminal offence while affecting a contractual agreement or conspiracy to do the same. You don't need to sit down and agree to do so because in law you can just be at the scene to be charged with a conspircy. It adds weight if you are at the scene on more than one occation, it's called joint enterprise. Added to the fact you run the campaign that is targeting said company doesn't leave much room now does it?

Look around Vivas website and you will not find a AR prisoner glory page like you do on grassroots sites. Look closer and you notice that all these people are closley linked together personally, some for many years. Campaigns even cross over leaving SARC running SHAC and so on, doesn't leave much for the imagination now does it?

What you are looking at is a hard core of extreme animal rights activists networking accross the UK and beyond using websites, as a main tool, under the lable legal campaigning and in reality it's just a front. The Newchurch campaign was a classic example and with close long standing links to SHAC. Even Gisbourne was linked to SHAC living with them and supported by them while in prison, she was also closley linked to the SARCs...

All this info isn't top secret it's common knowledge. You need to come down from the clouds because the game is up.


It'sme

"You mean people who take part in, or actively condone, or are implicated in, or employed for the torture or serious ill treatment of animals? Yes, they deserve everything they get. Its their choice. Just because the State doesn't consider their appalling behaviour to be illegal and put profit before animal welfare first doesn't make it right or in any way acceptable to people who do care about animals. In the same way that torture of humans is illegal so it should be for animals."

What about the mistakes? What about the children living at the homes targeted with bricks, paint stripper and fire bombs? How can you justify targeting a printer of letter heads or a milk man who isn't directly involved? What about these peoples human rights?

You can't justify these tactics in a democracy, you need to lobby like with the hunting act etc It works much better than giving the other side amo to demonise a whole movement.

I don't condone cruelty to animals but I will not stoop to their level. You need to rise above them and work harder to affect change legally.

Just William


If AR is so bad, why not let activists shame themselved in public?

16.06.2008 10:36

Tactics and law aside what stands out to me is that the press where barred from reporting – how can this be justified? If animals right protesters are so wrong, and their views and tactics so extreme then give sctivists enough rope to hang themselves in full view of the public! The ban on reporters suggests that the objection to exploiting animals and the “tactics” involved in this case is not as “extreme” as some want to suggest. I don't think the sentence have widespead pubic support either, another reason to keep the press out.

Amy


Reporting ban.

22.06.2008 11:25

Historicaly the animal rights movement have used court cases to generate pubicity, guilty or not, they pead not guilty just to drag the case through the tabloids. You also have to consinder the victims in all this and what affect the publicity would have on them. You also have to ask yourself if the press have found it worthy of printing... I guess the law is cutting your voice off if you take part in terrorist activities? If you take part in terrorist activities then you don't deserve a voice!!

We are all sick of the animal rights generated conspiracy theories that are spewed out day after day. If you have a valid argument then get all the scientists against to get together and argue the facts out instead of animal rights nutters shouting animal murderers outside printing companies adding nothing what so ever to a valid argument against vivisection.

Mainstream animal rights/wealfare campaings could do with out these grassroots nutters!

ViewFinder