Skip to content or view screen version

Hidden Article

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

SHAC plead guilty

Not SHAC | 08.09.2010 12:23 | SHAC | Animal Liberation | South Coast

Six SHAC defendants have all pleaded GUILTY to charges under SOCPA and Blackmail in a trial at Winchester

The 6 SHAC defeated the Crowns desire for a massive repressive show trial by all pleading guilty. They will be sentenced in October.

All reporting restrictions were lifted.

SHAC defeated the Crowns desire for a massive repressive show trial by all pleading guilty. This prevents the NETCU ‘urban terrorist’ lies being re-issued endlessly.

SHAC, an international campaign group calling for the closure of HLS, has been painted by the police and the press as a 'criminal organisation' duping members of the public concerned with animal abuse into donating their money to further 'a campaign of blackmail'. SHAC's activities, however, have been overwhelmingly lawful: the campaign publishes information about animal abuse inside HLS labs, reports campaigning activities and issues action alerts calling on supporters to write polite letters to companies working with HLS and ask them to desist. If those companies continue to do business with HLS, protests would usually follow. All material on the SHAC website is checked by a barrister and police are given prior notice of their demonstrations.
Despite this all defendants tactically pleaded guilty and will be sentenced in October.

Well done all six defendants – you are hero’s

Not SHAC

Comments

Hide 7 hidden comments or hide all comments

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

relevance?

08.09.2010 13:39

"SHAC's activities, however, have been overwhelmingly lawful: the campaign publishes information about animal abuse inside HLS labs, reports campaigning activities and issues action alerts calling on supporters to write polite letters to companies working with HLS and ask them to desist. If those companies continue to do business with HLS, protests would usually follow."

Agreed. But who was saying or implying otherwise? This case wasn't about all those legal activities of SHAC. Was about what some things that perhaps a small number of SHAC people might have done IN ADDITION TO whatever legal things they were doing.

MDN

Or...

08.09.2010 13:50

...to get a lighter sentence.

AH

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

That's right

08.09.2010 13:52

That's right, not SHAC. Just bury your head in the sand so that you don't have to face up to how terrible these people are.

Pretty Polly

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

True facts are available

08.09.2010 14:47

The truth behind this appalling attempt by SHAC and some Indymedia mods to hide what really resulted in this trial is available if a person spends some time searching.



Firstly the obvious one - they pled guilty because they were guilty of everything they were accused of. Let's forget the 'spin' shall we.

Secondly - they all wound up in court because of two key factors that both SHAC and a couple of Indy mods are trying to hide.

(A) The use of the Indymedia IP log files that showed the links between the ALF and SHAC people. This was an Indy UK screw up which they compounded by lying about and trying to hide the records off.


(B) The SHAC informer known by the police as "Kate" who still remains active in the AR scene despite her real identity being known by some in SHAC.


The IP Logging screw up was monumental in terms of the damage it did not only to SHAC but other activist, Green and Anarchist groups. In private both current and former mods have agreed they were wrong and perhaps to have come clean at the time would have been better. Either way the police, GCHQ and probably a couple of the well connected private security companies have the full IP details of Indy posters cross referenced against emails sent. Thousands of individuals are affected.

"Kate" as she is known represents a blow to not only SHAC but the wider Animal Rights scene that it will take years to recover from. A committed, well trained and professional infiltrator, most people who came into contact now assume her to be ex military, police or security services. I think she's still on the government payroll rather than that of big pharma as some presume but either way her years of intelligence have put a number of people behind bars. The choice made to "push her aside" rather than public identification because it would "be bad for morale and fund raising" was wrong on so many levels.

Both SHAC and Indymedia UK need to come clean, too many people now know to try and once again hide this.

Bystander

...

08.09.2010 15:00

Just because a supporter of SHAC commits a crime - doesn't mean that SHAC is a criminal organisation. People fail to realise that people can act on their own independently of SHAC.

...

This posting

08.09.2010 15:08

is from Shacwatch. It's up on their stupid website.

extra info

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

@ Bystander

08.09.2010 15:10

Dear Bystander,

You have no hope of that post staying up on the newswire. IMC removes every bit of evidence about its IP logging just as soon as it crops up. It will be hidden by the end of today and removed altogether by tomorrow.

Good try though to spread the truth

The Press

08.09.2010 16:03

Four animal rights activists, including a man from north London, have pleaded guilty to interfering and blackmailing companies linked to Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) in an attempt to close the animal testing lab down.

Jason Mullan, 32, from Holloway Road, London, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to harm HLS from 2005 to 2008 under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 by interfering with companies supplying them.

He was joined by Nicola Tapping, 29, from Clarence Road, Gosport, and Alfie Fitzpatrick, 20, from Knowle Road, Solihull, West Midlands, who admitted the same charge.

Thomas Harris, 27, from Clarence Road, Gosport, Hampshire, admitted conspiracy to blackmail companies and suppliers linked to the Cambridge-based company between 2001 and 2008.

The four, who were members of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), pleaded guilty at Winchester Crown Court on the eve of their trial.

Two other members of SHAC, Sarah Whitehead, 53, from Thorncroft Road, Littlehampton, West Sussex, and Nicole Vosper, 22, from Bay View Terrace, Newquay, Cornwall, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to blackmail at an earlier hearing.

The six waged an international campaign of intimidation against a host of companies to force the closure of HLS.

Homes of staff from the supply firms were targeted with abusive telephone calls and criminal damage and threats of violence were also used to force companies to cut links with HLS.

The Recorder of Winchester, Judge Keith Cutler, adjourned the case for pre-sentence reports. A two-day sentencing hearing will take place at Winchester Crown Court on October 21.

The maximum jail term for conspiracy to blackmail is 14 years and the conspiracy under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 is five years

Association report

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

That won't wash

08.09.2010 16:29

This is the second half of the leaders of SHAC - not just some followers who went a bit far and did some illegal acts.

SHAC has damaged the Animal Rights movement almost as much as the Gladys Hammond incident did - I hope those that are left try and learn from this!

We need a new name and and a new approach - this one failed.

@Honesty

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Clarification

08.09.2010 16:48

In reply to an earlier post; while it is true that Jason Mullan, Nicola Tapping and Alfie Fitzpatrick where in part convicted because of information gained from the police analysis of the IMC IP Logs this was not the only evidence and it is unfair to blame Indy as being responsible for their conviction. They did after all plead guilty to conspiracy. Indy has become an easy place to point at for SHAC since the IP logging problem was identified but SHAC do break the law and do get caught.

ex IMCista

@(dis)Honesty

08.09.2010 16:56

We need a new name and a new approach? Go on then. It's been nearly 4 years since the SHAC raids, you've had plenty of time to start this new approach, what have you done so far?

As for being the "second round of leaders", let's see what the judge says first shall we? And why would the CPS allow most of these 'leaders' to plead to the much less serious SOCPA charge instead of blackmail?

Arthur

intrigued...

08.09.2010 16:56

I was under the impression this trial was against them all for Blackmail, but now 3 of them have plead to SOCPA145 - a lesser crime...

Sounds like the CPS over prosecuting to me, and making much more serious accusations against people.

They must have had a weak case to lower the charges.

joe

re: relevance?

08.09.2010 16:57

MDN: "Agreed. But who was saying or implying otherwise? This case wasn't about all those legal activities of SHAC."

The relevance is that it actually WAS about the legal activities, because blackmail doesn't have to involve acts which are in themselves breaking the law.

If you threaten to do something (which could be itself perfectly legal) unless a company takes some action (e.g. stopping to deal with animal testing companies), that can be classed as blackmail. Which technically covers pretty much every campaigning group that has ever existed.

For example, releasing an incriminating photo of an MP with a prostitute isn't itself illegal. But if you demand the MP takes some action to stop you releasing the image, it is illegal.

Other movements need to take good heed of this development, because repression usually hits animal rights campaigners first, and is then exported to other groups that rock the boat too much.

Don't believe the government myth that this case is about the small amount of illegal actions that were carried out by persons unknown. It is purely political, because the animal rights movement was hurting the profits of pharmaceutical companies and other powerful interests. That is why the charges are something vague and encompassing like blackmail and not something specific like criminal damage.

anon

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

crazy

08.09.2010 17:38

>> For example, releasing an incriminating photo of an MP with a prostitute isn't itself illegal. But if you demand the MP takes some action to stop you releasing the image, it is illegal.
Absolutely. And so it should be. Classic blackmail.

>> If you threaten to do something (which could be itself perfectly legal) unless a company takes some action (e.g. stopping to deal with animal testing companies), that can be classed as blackmail. Which technically covers pretty much every campaigning group that has ever existed.

Yes absolutely. If a company is acting legally, you cannot stop it from doing so. THat would be the same you as trying to stop me walking down the street by threatning to release information on me.
Campaigning cannot legally try to stop people doing lawful things. What you need to do is to campaign to change the law so that it becomes illegal for people to do those things.
Everything else you do is illegal (except legit protesting).

Should these SHAC members be guilty - absolutely.
Im not sure what the poster is going on about saying its a victory. Sounds like sour-grapes.
Clearly it isn't a victory - they are actually insulting the readers intelligence by writing proproganda that doesn't wash.




imaz

Word from the top

08.09.2010 18:22


'If we had gone down and protested outside HLS (Huntingdon Life Sciences) every day for the last five years we would have got nowhere'

Greg Avery, SHAC

Greg

Blackmail examples

08.09.2010 18:48

The example given above, that if you release a picture of an MP with a prostitute it's legal (not if Mr Justice Eady thinks it a breach of privacy!) but if you threaten to release it unless the MP performs some action, it is blackmail, is not the whole story.

It's only blackmail if the action the MP is forced to perform doesn't impact on changes to legislation or policy. If it does, then you're using intimidation to obtain a change in law or policy, and this is an offence under section three of the Treason Felony Act of 1848.

The act protects any government that's loyal to the Queen, so it's still an offence if the MP is Canadian or from Bermuda, or even the Scottish Parliament.

It is therefore a bad idea to DEMAND any change or law or policy from any MP, MSP, Stormont or Welsh Assembly member, with anything that can be construed as a threat.

The good news is that the European Parliament does not swear loyalty to the Queen, and you can do with your MEP what you will, subject only to the laws on blackmail.

Anon, but not the usual anon

Solidarity

08.09.2010 19:55

Solidarity to the new SHAC 6.

Regardless of what any of them have done, as far as I am concerned the real criminals are the ones in HLS.

The use of blackmail is just a way to get higher sentences - surely the more appropriate charge is the SOCPA 145 - interfering with a contractual relationship of an animal research organisation.

The blackmail charge could be applied to environmental/ anti war protesters if the police wanted to. A blackmail is an unwarranted demand with menaces. Any protest involving a minor crime could amount to this. And no doubt one day they will start using Blackmail against other protest movements.

It's been done against SHAC people because campaigning by animal rights activists (lawful and unlawful) was effective, and this was their way of trying to put a stop to it by taking everyone out of the movement by locking them up with high sentences.

It is also a massive PR stunt to give the pharmaceutical industry confidence.

Interesting that some had their charges lowered to SOCPA. Must be a massive blow to the cops as the sentences are much lower.


chas

Hide 7 hidden comments or hide all comments