SOCPA | ukwatch.net

Activist Jailed for 4.5 years

Ellie Keen — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0000

Serious Implications for Freedom of Speech

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
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

Cage the Rage

JamieSW — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 19:16:54 +0000

INTERNMENT IS NEW TACTIC TO DEAL WITH ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

“This is just the latest example of the state attempting to decapitate the animal rights movement – but we’re not going away” – SPEAK campaigner.

“What people outside the animal rights movement don’t seem to appreciate is that once these moves have been practised on us, they are expanded to everyone expressing dissent – just look at how PHA injunctions attacked first us, then the peace movement, then the environmentalists and finally the climate camp” – an Animal Rights Legal Advisor

The screws have been tightened on the animal rights (AR) movement yet again. In this country, and in the US, there has been a serious state attempt to deal with the strength of the animal rights movement by using an extra-legal form of internment. Currently the three most prominent activists from the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) campaign – Greg Avery, Natasha Avery and Heather Nicholson – are all on remand, after high profile arrests back on May 1st (see SchNEWS 585). They are charged with ‘conspiracy to blackmail’. Now the same applies to the main spokesman for the SPEAK campaign, Mel Broughton.

Mel was arrested in his home at 5.30am on December 12th – and he’s been held on remand ever since on charges of arson and ‘conspiracy to blackmail’. Meanwhile campaigners against the Sequani animal labs in Ledbury are on trial for conspiracy to breach Sections 145 and 146 of the SOCPA – laws especially introduced to protect ‘animal research’ facilities.

SPEAK (www.speakcampaigns.org) are fighting against the new Oxford University primate laboratory, referred to as being of ‘national importance’ by Lord Sainsbury, unelected science minister and aggressive lobbyist for GM crops amongst other profitable er, sorry, progressive issues. Back in June, SchNEWS reported how a senior Thames Valley police officer, Inspector Shead, was caught on tape promising to ‘wage a dirty war’ against the SPEAK campaign (see SchNEWS 590) and ‘persecute’ spokesman Mel Broughton – indeed ‘to prosecute the sh*t out of him’. Now the meaning of that has become clear – the shattering of the AR movement by any means necessary. A SPEAK campaigner told us, “We know they’ve been gunning for Mel for a long time – but this isn’t a one man campaign. It is basically internment – everything about this campaign is peaceful and legal. The big picture is that the police want to smash SPEAK and SHAC.’’

Aspects of the raids, taken in context with other repression around the country, demonstrate that the police’s main strategy is disruption. During Operation Achilles – the raids which netted the SHAC organisers – huge quantities of leaflets, cash etc was seized as ‘evidence’, obviously damaging the ability of the campaign to continue. One campaigner arrested during the initial sweep told SchNEWS how the police pressured them to try and secure their Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) key to their computers. In November, police wrote letters demanding that the passwords for encrypted files on seized computers be released under threat of legal action. Campaigners refused to back down and as yet no legal action has been taken.

LOVE SHAC

The reason the state is using conspiracy charges is they like their all encompassing vagueness. Rather than having to prove specific criminal activities, a huge quantity of evidence can be produced from which ‘inferences’ can be drawn. In the SHAC case over 15,000 pages of documents have been produced, including transcripts from bugs placed in hire cars and into the wall of, what the prosecution are referring to as, ‘the SHAC house’.

Also included are transcripts of conversations made by one of the accused from prison. However there is not one shred of evidence that points to direct engagement in criminal activities (beyond such trivia as trespass). According to one source, the evidence is bizarre – “it includes family photos – loads of stuff that hasn’t got anything to do with animal rights or demos or anything…”

The trial is expected to last six months – so even if the three are acquitted they will have spent the best part of two years unable to take part in any effective campaigning. If they are convicted it will pave the way to repeat the tactics with other campaign groups – except those couched in the vaguest non-threatening terms – and especially those that are actually effective.

“The danger of this sort of accusation is that simply running a campaign could be described as blackmail. Obviously a blackmailer’s threats do not have to be illegal, simply the suggestion that if you don’t do X we will do Y could be construed as blackmail” (AR legal advisor) – i.e. the very act of organising demos could become a very serious criminal offence, punishable by years inside. So once more we see laws drafted to protect individuals being used (or twisted) to protect corporations. SHAC has to be the legally most watertight campaign in the UK. Everything they publish is checked by a barrister beforehand. As our source told us, “ They’ve got masses of evidence of demos being organised of course but most of them are organised with the police! Every campaign has a target – even Greenpeace send out action e-mail alerts! How can what we do be described as blackmail?”

The case of the Sequani Six is now entering its second week in Birmingham Crown Court. Sequani are a vivisection laboratory based in Ledbury, Hertfordshire and are the latest beneficiaries of a law specifically targeted at those who campaign for animal rights. Six protesters, including one 80-year-old woman are charged with conspiracy to “interfere with contractual relationships so as to harm animal research organisation” under section 145 of SOCPA.

To add insult to injury the judge in the trial has admitted that he regularly enjoys hunting – but we’re sure he won’t let that unduly prejudice him.

It has been suggested by top cop Anton Setchell (ACPO National Coordinator for Domestic Extremism) that the SOCPA laws, which effectively prohibit demos outside establishments connected with animal research, were not drafted widely enough. He wants them expanded to cover any groups that engage in sustained campaigning. The National Extremism Tactical Co-ordinating Unit’s website (www.netcu.org.uk) says, “The term ‘domestic extremism’ applies to unlawful action that is part of a protest or campaign. It is most often associated with ‘single-issue’ protests, such as animal rights, anti-war, anti-globalisation and anti-GM (genetically modified) crops.”. Alarmingly section 149 of SOCPA allows the secretary of state to declare any business to be the equivalent of an animal research establishment without going back to Parliament.

Despite the full agencies of the state being bent on the movement’s destruction, with widespread abuse of public order law and the shutting down of animal rights info stalls – they’re not going away! Demos continue despite police intimidation. Vivisectors and those who deal with them are still firmly in the movement’s sights and a glance at the websites demonstrate the extent to which this struggle is still gaining in strength, and going global. As a SHAC activist told us “They think that by taking out a few key people they can stop our movement but for every two they take away there will be four to take their place. The public support has been amazing…”

Further reading:

- SPEAK www.speakcampaigns.org

- SHAC www.shac.net

- STOPSequani www.stopsequani.co.uk

A Protest of Love

Ellie Keen — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 02:12:42 +0000

Ask Brian Haw what his protest is about and he will tell you: It is about LOVE. If the intellectual liberty which without a doubt has been one of the distinguishing marks of western civilisation means anything at all, it means that everyone shall have the right to say and to print what he believes to be the truth, provided only that it does not harm the rest of the community in some quite unmistakable way.

“I believe this is a fight for freedom. And I want to make it a fight for justice too. Justice not only to punish the guilty. But justice to bring those same values of democracy and freedom to people round the world.

And I mean: freedom, not only in the narrow sense of personal liberty but in the broader sense of each individual having the economic and social freedom to develop their potential to the full. That is what community means, founded on the equal worth of all.

The starving, the wretched, the dispossessed, the ignorant, those living in want and squalor from the deserts of Northern Africa to the slums of Gaza, to the mountain ranges of Afghanistan: they too are our cause.”

One of the peculiar phenomena of our time is the renegade liberal. If one loves democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies by no matter what means. And who are its enemies? It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and consciously, but those who “objectively” endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines. In other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought. These people don’t see that if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you. Make a habit of imprisoning fascists without trial, and perhaps the process won’t stop at fascists.

Maya Evans was arrested at the Cenotaph in Whitehall for reading out the names of 97 British soldiers killed in Iraq. She was the first person to be convicted under section 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, which requires protesters to obtain police permission before demonstrating within one kilometre of parliament.

“The whole of our system starts from the proposition that its duty is to protect the innocent from being wrongly convicted. Don’t misunderstand me. That must be the duty of any criminal justice system. But surely our primary duty should be to allow law-abiding people to live in safety. It means a complete change of thinking. It doesn’t mean abandoning human rights. It means deciding whose come first.”

Steven Jago, 36, a management accountant, was also charged under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act. On 18 June, Jago carried a placard in Whitehall bearing the George Orwell quote: “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

In answer to a Freedom of Information Act request for information to the Metropolitan police regarding the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 Designated Area around Parliament Square:

There is no public consultation before the publication of this Order.

The Designated Area does not include Waterloo Station and it does not extend underground.

As the legislation deals with the person taking part in a demonstration, it does not cover the airspace above Parliament Square as the demonstrators are unlikely in the air. However, any use of kites, helium balloons or other equipment in the airspace would have to comply with Civil Aviation legislation. There is no minimum duration to a demonstration before it falls under the new regulations.

Written notice seeking authorisation for a demonstration must be delivered to a police station within the Metropolitan Police District or sent by post by recorded delivery to such a police station. The commissioner will not accept digital electronic signatures as written notice must be given. Email applications are not permitted under these provisions.

Beeping of horns is not classified as a loudspeaker.

A convoy of moving vehicles could be classed as a “procession”.

A separate notification needs to be submitted for each new demonstration, however long it lasts. However, one letter could seek authorisation for more than one demonstration.

The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as “This dog is free from lice” or “This field is free from weeds”. Pre-revolutionary literature could only be subjected to ideological translation – that is, alteration in sense as well as language.

“When I pass protestors every day at Downing Street, and believe me, you name it, they protest against it, I may not like what they call me, but I thank God they can. That’s called freedom.”

“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government … “

It would have been quite impossible to render this well-known passage from the Declaration of Independence into Newspeak while keeping to the sense of the original. The nearest one could come to doing so would be to swallow the whole passage up in the single word crimethink.

State Britain by Mark Wallinger (Tate Publishing, 2007) © Tate 2007

Help Me Put Gordon in Jail

Tim Holmes — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:33:10 +0000

Rarely do first lines have the potential to cost thousands of pounds (outside of libel), and rarely do I get to write words quite like those that follow, so forgive me an over-dramatic opening sentence, but yesterday lawyers acting for me started an attempt to get Gordon Brown into the dock.

With lawyers and police working on the ongoing Donorgate inquiries, Downing Street can be quite crowded if you are trying to bring a legal action. Nonetheless, my lawyers delivered a letter to the director of public prosecutions on Wednesday afternoon calling for an urgent investigation into allegations that the prime minister broke the law by demonstrating unlawfully in Parliament Square last summer. If found guilty he could face 50 weeks in prison – though, after serving 10 years at No 11, he should do his bird with ease.

This is partly Mr Brown’s own fault. It began when MPs rushed the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 through, forcing anyone wishing to demonstrate within an area around parliament to get police approval. This is the law that Maya Evans was arrested and convicted under, for reading out the names of the British and Iraqi war dead.

In the past 18 months I have legally demonstrated in every corner of the area this law covers, from Hungerford Bridge (demanding more trolls) to the Mall (demanding human rights in Saudi Arabia). The definition of what constitutes a protest is such that I had to apply for permission to wear a red nose in Parliament Square on Red Nose Day. Not to do so would have risked arrest. Last month I had to get police approval to hold a banner saying, “Support the Poppy Appeal”.

If the wearing of a brightly coloured proboscis constitutes a protest, then the unveiling of Nelson Mandela’s statue must do so too. After all, it celebrated the collapse of apartheid (a political cause), honoured a man who organised the armed struggle in South Africa (definitely political and quite possibly glorifying terrorism) and pledged to fight poverty.

So, being civic-minded, I wrote to the police asking if I needed permission for a gathering at the statue. My event had speeches – in fact, they were extracts from the original speeches made on the day by Mr Brown and Mr Mandela. Yes, the police informed me, I did need permission to demonstrate – which I duly applied for and received. Unfortunately for the prime minister, it seems no one bothered to get police approval at the event he spoke at.

Mr Brown, however, is just the tip of the iceberg. One person can constitute a demonstration, but what exactly is a demonstration? In law, there is little to go by, but for various dictionary definitions, such as “an expression of opinion”. It is my duty as a law-abiding citizen, therefore, to add to the legal letter served the names of MPs seen holding forth on political issues on College Green, urging the DPP to investigate them for breaking the law and demonstrating without permission. It does not matter that they are being interviewed for news programmes – the law allows no exceptions or exemptions. In fact, the news organisations could be guilty of organising unlawful demonstrations by asking MPs to speak, so I have reported them as well.

All of this may seem ridiculous, but hey, they started it, and making a crap law does not exempt you from its provisions. So I am calling on all fair-minded citizens to report any MPs seen giving interviews on College Green or in Parliament Square. You can do so by photographing the offending MP and posting it to www.shopanmp.com.

Mark Thomas is a comedian and political activist; to support the action, you can buy an “I put Gordon Brown in the dock” badge for £2 at www.markthomasinfo.com. Any money not used in the legal challenge will be donated to Index on Censorship

Double Jeopardy

JamieSW — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 23:50:35 +0000

Stung by criticism over the farcical restrictions on protest outside parliament, Gordon Brown pledged a review of the controversial sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Act (SOCPA). Initially this law seemed tailored specifically for one Brian Haw, permanent resident of Parliament Square, but it subsequently caught more than a few others in its dragnet (see SchNEWS 574).

The persecution of Brian caught the public imagination (he’s not the messiah..!) and he ended up winning Channel 4’s ‘Political Man of the Year Award’ as well as appearing regularly in documentaries. Brian’s sheer inoffensivenes did much to highlight a government hellbent on controlling any dissent no matter how innocuous.

Anxious to try and draw a line between himself and the previous incumbent of No 10, Gordon was quick to bounce up and declare he was really a loverly right-on, friend-to-all kinda guy, passionate about real democracy – and almost certain to relax some of the more totalitarian parts of (Serious Organised and Crime Police Act) SOCPA soon. Er, force a warm matey grimace for the cameras and hope no one notices the tsunami of other anti-civil liberty laws going through (SchNEWS 598).

GREEN PAPER TIGERS

In a classic Neo-Labour attempt to turn concern for democracy on its head, Gordon’s fembot at the Home Office, Jaqui Smith, has published a ‘public consultation’ document as part of the series of green papers titled, ‘Governance of Britain’ (...don’t all rush at once!). At first this poses as a simple review of the laws surrounding protest in Parliament, but really has a far wider remit. In fact it proposes a major redraft of existing Public Order Law. Apparently this is all in the interests of ‘re-invigorating our democracy’ – a piece of doublespeak that would have Orwell spinning so fast in his grave that he’d prove a valuable source of renewable energy.

At the moment, the Public Order Act 1986 is the basic framework used to hassle people on street demos. Since it came in it has been modified by successive acts and supplemented by a tide of legislation aimed at giving the police powers to decide for themselves just what constitutes legitimate protest activity (see SchNews 1-611).

Under the Public Order Act, police have the powers to impose conditions on assemblies and marches of two or more people if they fear serious violence, serious criminal damage or serious disruption to the life of the community. Sussex Police, for example, have imposed conditions on gatherings of as few as three people before now. In effect the law allows for cops on the day to decide exactly how much dissent they are prepared to tolerate and arrest those who do not comply.

But this doesn’t mean they’re happy. They’ve pressed for more and more power. There is still the annoying fact, for example, that there is one important difference between the laws on marches and assemblies. In order to organise a march you have to give six days notice in writing for the police. Marches can be banned but assemblies cannot. So of course police want these laws to be ‘harmonised’ – as long as that means giving them power to proscribe spontaneous assemblies at will. But of course we are assured all this will ‘not restrict the right to assembly’.

Also explicitly mentioned is the idea of redrafting the law so that police can confiscate banners with slogans they fear might cause ‘public disorder’. This is a major step in the direction of ‘thoughtcrime’. Just as it is an offence to participate in a banned march it will be an offence to attend a banned assembly.

Police have been caught out more than once using these powers as if they amounted to a blanket ‘Do as you’re told’ Order. Several forces have had to pay out thousands to protesters who convinced courts that the police did not have any justification to impose conditions on demos. No wonder top plod want the law ‘harmonised’. These green papers may be a case of aim for the moon and you might get the stars, but even watered down the measures proposed are not very mouthwatering.

To read for yourself see www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2007-managing-protest (– ‘cons 2007’ is a pretty fair description…)

AN ACT TO GRIND

And the big charade of a newly fluffy government actually listening to the public about anything didn’t take long to crack – just a few days in fact. It turns out the next piece of the state crackdown on civil liberties is already in place. Ladies and gents, having just gained the big nod from her Maj, QEII, let us introduce you one to of the newest Acts already on yer statute book… the Serious Crime Act 2007 (SCA). Effectively already law, it can now be rolled whenever the government wishes.

Amongst a number of measures, such as beefing up powers of asset recovery and transferring even more power to the Serious Organised Crime Agency, it’s out to create new offences. As well as bringing in ‘Serious Crime Prevention Orders’, making it easier to get court orders to detain people before they actually do anything wrong, we also look set to be living in a 1984-styled country where you can get nicked for the offences of ‘assisting or encouraging’. We kid you not.

The current incitement laws are to be dropped and replaced with the new crimes, even more open to police interpretation and abuse. Apparently, “A person commits an offence if he (a) does an act capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence; or (b) he intends to encourage or assist its commission.

Just in case this wasn’t enough, “It is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (1)(b)(ii) whether the person has any belief as to which offence will be encouraged or assisted.” In terms of protesting, let alone ramifications across the whole of police interaction with the public, this will mean carte blanche for police to basically arrest anyone at a protest where someone is committing some kind of offence or it is believed that some offence might be committed.

Maximum penalties are not light either, with a 51-week prison sentence or a £4,000 possible.

Who knows, banner and placard waving or being nice to someone d-locked could easily be seen as ‘encouragement’, for example. Giving someone a lift to a demo could turn out to be assistance. The standards of proof required to be convicted under the act also appear vague and open to exploitation.

Whatever the outcome of the sham public consultations turn out to be, the chosen way for ‘managing protest’ seems to have already decided. And yes, it’s more open-to-all-interpretations laws given police more discretionary powers to crack down on anyone they don’t like the look of – presumably all handily in place for when society cracks under the weight of climate change, peak oil, Armageddon etc. They plan ahead these people.

———————————————————————————————

- SOCPA The Movie: www.socpa-movie.blogspot.com

- There is a public meeting about the proposed SOCPA changes on Sunday 2nd December at LSE room H102, Connaught House, 2-4pm. www.lse.ac.uk/resources/mapsAndDirections/Default.htm