The informant wished to remain anonymous, but went on to explain in depth the security systems at the lab.
Following up from this, Keith Mann went to look at the laboratory, and found it to be exactly as the whistle-blower had described.
He planned a raid on the facility in order to publicly expose Wickham, which ultimately ended in the liberation of 700 mice, and substantial paper work.
As promised, the paperwork showed that Wickham were testing a substance called Botulin Toxin (BOTOX) for Ipsen Biopharm.
Ipsen have publicly stated that a proportion of their Botulin Toxin is used in cosmetic procedures.
Unfortunately for Keith Mann, and the rescued mice, he was arrested, most of the mice were recovered, and Keith ended up in court with co defendant Melvyn Glintenkamp.
Throughout the trial. the judge repeatedly refused to allow evidence which would show that Wickham were testing unlawfully.
Any mention of Wickham’s past of using ex-pets in experiments was also silenced.
Another shocking detail revealed in the paperwork is the use of the notorious Lethal Dose 50 test (LD50).
This involves injecting a toxic substance into the stomachs of a batch of animals and increasing the dose until half have died.
The surviving half are then immediately gassed or have their necks broken. This practice, which is heavily criticised by scientists, was partially banned in 1999, except in the 'most exceptional circumstances'.
The Judge was eager to imprison Mr Mann, but due to his role as a full time carer, and a glowing parole report, he was obliged to give him a community service order.
As Keith was leaving the court, obviously delighted with the result, the technical director of Wickham Labs, a very angry looking, Mr. Bishop, muttered to Mr Mann "We'll get you lot next time".
Mr Mann responded, "Your troubles have only just started".
Mr. Bishop went into a customary frenzy, and started screaming and ranting.
Mr Mann was brought back into court, where he explained that he had not intended to threaten Mr Bishop, and that he meant when the public found out about the Botox testing, the lab would be in trouble through the negative publicity.
The judge ignored the explanation, gave Keith no chance to apologise, and was delighted to sentence him to 6 months for contempt of court.
Mr. Bishop’s provocation was overlooked, and his blatant lie, that Keith had warned him to 'look under your bed', was swallowed by the judge.
Keith himself has stated that he does not understand what such an obscure, and rather unlikely threat would even mean!
As usual the media have run wild with this. Articles have appeared in most
newspapers in an attempt to slam Mr Mann and turn the public against the animal rights movement.
The articles have all been very biased, concentrating largely on the past and Mr Mann's criminal record, dating back some 15 years.
Mr Mann has not been convicted for any offences which were violent and he has never threatened life, or physically harmed another being.
Many papers have reported that, according to a high court judge, "Mr. Mann carried out a terrorist style campaign against the meat industry".
They have not noted the fact that the judge in question was a retired meat farmer, with strong pro-bloodsports views, and that unlike genuine terrorists, Keith Mann has never hurt anybody, nor would he ever.
Despite the fervour of journalists digging into the past,
Wickham's very dubious past has not been touched upon.
We recommend that in future, journalists direct their attention in that direction.
It was widely reported several years ago, that a Wickham Director called upon the RSPCA to hand its stray dogs over to the vivisection industry - needless to say this is just the tip of the iceberg.
A raid on the Royal College of Surgeons showed that this Director also ran a company (APT) who supplied mongrel dogs to labs.
Even to the most casual observer, these dogs were ex-pets.
For more information: SARC, PO Box 5668, Poole, Dorset, BH15 3ZR 0845 458 4673 info@sarconline.co.uk
www.SARConline.co.uk The second defendant, Melvyn Glintenkamp, was sentenced to 150 hours of community punishment.
Write to Keith at: Keith Mann KJ0365, HMP Winchester, Romsey Rd, Winchester SO22 5DF
Comments
Hide the following 3 comments
appeal
08.05.2005 17:39
.
Not quite sure I understand
08.05.2005 21:06
The article seems to be saying that there was something wrong or peculiar that the judge refused to allow defenses based upon the (general) actions of the person(s) against whom the crimes were committed. Now I understand you may have something like the "necessity" defense. Even over this side of the pond you could TRY to argue "I had to break in because the lives of the mice were in imminent danger". Just like you could (in this case successfully) defend yourself against a charge of "destruction of property" because you broke down the dorr of a building you thought was on fire to rescue persons you thought were inside >
But the point here SEEMS to be simply "the target of my crime was a bad person conducting illegal activities (at least bad and/or immoral activitieis but it will serve my purpose even better to grant "illegal"). Is that the way your laws work? Are you able to defend yourself in court against a charge of "armed robbery" using the defense "the person I was robbing was a drug dealer and the money I took from him the proceeds of his illegal trade." Or do you think that it should be so (that such a defense be allowed).
PLEASE -- don't misunderstand me. I am NOT taking issue with the concept of doing what you think right in a situation like this to protect the animals. I am only taking issue with what seems to be an unreasonable attitude toward what should happen if you get caught. I would be concerned if "political crimes" of this sort receieved unduly severe sentences following conviction. Was that the case here? Is a couple hundred hours community service an unusually stiff sentence for a first time caught burglar in your neck of the woods?
Sorry -- I strongly disagree with he concept that it should be a defense that "the target of my crime was a bad, immoral, person whose actions are, or should be disapproved by the majority of the community and should be made illegal" If you do not see why, stop for a moment to consider who else could be attacked with impunity were that so.
Mike
e-mail: stepbystpefarm mtdata.com
defences
09.05.2005 07:47
gh