Skip to content or view screen version

SHAC Second Trial sentences - could have been a hell of a lot worse

Martin Fossy Foster | 25.10.2010 17:24 | SHAC | Animal Liberation | Repression | Cambridge | World

Today 6 activists who had plead guilty to either Conspiricy to Blackmail HLS or Conspiricy to interfere with a contractual relationship of an animal research company (SOCPA 145). Were sentenced

We were expecting the worse and it didn't go to badly to be honest.

Sarah Whitehead received a sentence of 6 years (she will be free in two years) plus 10 year ASBO. - she admitted painting cars and houses of animal abusers.

Nicole Vosper 3 years 6 months (she will be free in two weeks time served!!!!!) plus 5 year ASBO - she admitted painting cars and houses of animal abusers.

Tom Harris 4 years (will surve under 2 years) - 5 year ASBO Tom admitted sending two emails to bike back after receiving them through email from a person he didn't know (the emails were about painting cars) and taking part in a loud demo in France which the French police regarded as totally lawful (but the British police didn't).

JJ (Jason Mullen) 3 years (he will be out in about a year) - 5 year ASBO - JJ took part in a office occupation in France that the French police do not regard as unlawful.

Nicci Tapping 15 months (she should be out in just over 4 months) - 5 year ASBO - Nicci admitted taking part in running the SHAC campaigns legal side (organising demos and the office) - she admitted knowing that people (who she did not know) were breaking the law as part of the campaign (that really is it!!!!).

Alfie Fitzpatrick 1 year suspended sentence - 5 year ASBO he admitted taking part in a loud demo in France attended by the French police (the French police did not feel an offence had been committed).

All the other things reported on the tele/papers Hoax bombs, paedophile letters, arson attacks, abusive letters, the tampon in the post were carried out by people either previously convicted (and not part of the actual conspiricy - first or second trial) or never found. The used tampon has DNA evidence however there is no match on the national database. Most of this also occured before the 2005 start date of the charge.

Must the individuals who carried out the above acts are not known to the guys convicted today.

They are being blamed for the entire campaign and not what they individually did, or even had control over.

It must be pointed out as well that Nicci, Alfie and JJ were convicted of SOCPA 145 which has been condemed by Liberty as "politicising the criminal justice system). If they did the things they are accused of against anything other than animal testing they probably wouldn't have even gone to prison!



Martin Fossy Foster
- Homepage: http://www.shac.net

Comments

Hide the following 6 comments

I agree but...

25.10.2010 18:51

considering that rapists and those who seriously injure innocents people often get less than this we have to see this as political sentencing. Have read the BBC website which implies that at the age of 13 that Nicole was sending off needles and sanitary towels to hapless HLS collaborators. Messy and biased reporting Channel 4 even dug up poor old Gladys yet again as though that had anything to do with the story but of course we have to recognise that this is how it is and just get on with smashing HLS and every other establishment which tortures, pollutes, murders and oppresses. I have no wish to harm any HLS worker but they are my enemy and until they stop the terror they will be treated as such. Well done the great British media for scaring the living snot out of anyone involved in vivisection, you have made my job much easier and really I am a nice person who is always happy to sit and talk out differences with my opponent after all I am no paragon of virtue. This evening outside Harlan near Huntingdon which breeds beagles to be tortured there were only 3 of us and some of them looked terrified despite the police presence.

Lynn Sawyer


Is that really the extent of what they did?

25.10.2010 20:49

I'm not sure if this article isn't underestimating their roles in the campaign a bit because they weren't the only Brits on the demos in France, so surely attending a noisy demo wasn't enough to have been convicted under SOCPA 145?

It is true that the Frenchies weren't too bothered by the demos, (the office invasion included), and the demos were properly declared, (according to all appropriate French laws with the authorisations being organised by a lawyer), so I fail to accept that the repression can have been SO severe that they were prosecuted JUST for participating in those demos. I mean, according to the article at least one person nearly went to prison for attending a legal European demo...which possibly isn't so accurate considering other Brits were also on that demo and they didn't find themselves in court as a result!

I'm not trolling, just pointing out that there must be some exageration, (or in this case underestimation), of people's roles in this article. I know that the trial is politicised and whatever else, but a more honest appraisal of events and people's actions might help other activists judge the lengths they are willing to go to because if they were to believe this verbatim then people might fear to attend other lawful demos abroad for fear of coming home and being prosecuted for it!

Not convinced


@ not convinced

25.10.2010 23:29

I can see your point it seems crazy and it is. The fact is that conspiracy does not mean that the accused did everything on the inditement or even knew or condoned each act. They have to prove that people knew one another and that during the campaign some illegal stuff happened. The only people who can tell us the whole story are the defendants themselves but I do not think that they did anything that would have resulted in a prison sentence if this was not a political case. During the Sequani trial people were dragged through Crown Court for wearing Halloween costumes on a demo.

You say that we shoud be careful not to underestimate what the defendants may have done so that we know where we stand when we go on actions. This is a very good point and my personal opinion is that in the animal rights movement for some years now the state have tried to crush all dissent as well as actions which have included criminal damage and/or other stuff. I think that every single activist needs to get good legal and security training and know their rights if protesting or remain utterly anonymous working with a very small group or alone if carrying out any action which might be illegal in an ideal world. The state is cracking down and we need to continue to resist it learning from our mistakes.People need to be aware but not paralysed with fear. I have done demos where the police have said that our behaviour was good and then the next week the same behaviour is regarded as criminal. The police and the law are not set in stonewhat is ok one day is an outrage the next. Not easy but the way things are. Be politically active, have a powerful opponent and you will probably have aggro from the police if you are doing your job properly.

Lynn Sawyer


They did not all plead guilty to blackmail

26.10.2010 11:32

Nicci, Alfie and JJ all pleaded guilty to 145 SOCPA which is something which should be repealed if we do not wish to slip into a police state it has the capacity to make ANY demonstration however fluffy, however "legal" into a serious criminal offence and enables civil torts such as libel and trespass to be ungraded into something with a 5 year sentence if "interfering with a contractual obligation".

The others did indeed plead guilty to blackmail it would seem out of pragmatism more than anything else to get the discount in sentencing and the fact that it would have been trial by media and histrionincs rather than the facts in the case.

If you actually want to live in something like a democracy you ignore what the state has done here at your peril. No defendant had a case whereby the evidence on what they had done as an individual was examined impartially. If someone sent sanitary towels and needles in the post well let the public see who is suspected and the evidence against them rather than a blanket prosecution of anyone holding the same political views. It is yet another example of how powerful interests have the state as a lapdog. A pensioner terrorised on a council estate suffers far worse than any of these "victims" but it is oft reported on how the police ignore ordinary folk's cries for help.

This is a political prosecution, political sentencing and evidence of an attempt to crush dissent.

Lynn Sawyer


We need to understand

26.10.2010 12:36

SIMPLY saying what a person did or did not do without the full context is meaningless. As a tactic for gaining sympathy questionable. MAYBE people out here stupid enough to be taken in by the misleading but maybe the reverse will happen and when really subject to unjust prosecution will be ignored (the "cry wolf" problem).

PLEASE --- this is NOT about what actions should or should not be taken, what is or is not justified in the furtherance of the cause.. It is about the DESCRIPTION of actions. Take these two ........

a) Some bunch of friends out partying, drunk out of their gourds, for kicks dump buckets of paint on cars and houses, crack cars windshields, etc.

b) Some bunch of friends together decide to send out mennaces, do thus and so or we'll dump buckets of paint on your cars and houses, crack your windshields, etc. Maybe divied up among the group who would send the mennaces and who would do the destruction.

The ACT of minor destruction if carried out the same. But "a" and "b" are very different matters. There would be (should be) no "conspiracy" charges associated with "a" and "a" isn't "extortion". But with "b", yes.

Again PLEASE -- I am NOT suggesting that you shouldn't do what you think necessary and justified in your campaign. That's up to you. But cut out the whining about consequences of those choices.

MDN


@MDN

27.10.2010 17:10

What you say is true, a one-off event is less than a sustained campaign, but the fact is that most of the people sent to prison had nothing to do with illegal activity, whether actually doing it or organising it. The only link is that it was done in the name of the campaign that they were helping to run.

If you look at campaigns like Smash EDO, they have a legal campaign and illegal actions carried out by other people. The legal campaign is free to talk about the illegal actions of others, and even justify it morally. In animal rights campaigns the legal group can't even mention the fact illegal actions have happened, even though mainstream media can. They have to censor themselves and basically pretend it doesn't exist, to avoid incitement charges. And even when they do that they are still done for blackmail anyway!

I'm not saying Smash EDO deserve the same crackdown as SHAC (though they should prepare for the possibility) as they do a great job. But it is clear that the rules are much harsher for animal rights, possibly due to their greater effectiveness.

anon