A network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues.

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 Second trial begins

@Winchester | 01.09.2010 09:58 | SHAC | Animal Liberation | World

On Wednesday 21st January, seven activists from the campaign Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) were sentenced to a total of fifty years in prison, after they were found guilty in December 2008 of 'conspiracy to blackmail' Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS). Heather Nicholson was jailed for 11 years, Gregg and Natasha Avery sentenced to nine years each, Gavin Medd-Hall an eight-year prison sentence, Daniel Wadham jailed for five years, Dan Amos and another were both sentenced to four years in prison.

"They conspired to do A B and C ... with Persons or Persons Unknown." - Who were persons unknown? It really didn't matter, as the above conspiracy law linked the individuals even though they had never met them or talked to them. However, this was all ignored as the media falsely charged the activists with hypocrisy, extremism and terrorism, instead of acknowledging their own hypocritical standpoint, best portrayed by the Telegraph, with NETCU helping to further the hysteria following the activists guilty verdicts.

The second trial begins this week, another group of activists face long prision terms for simply protesting against animal cruelty.

Two have already pleaded guilty, probably because they have no faith in the systems ability to deliver justice, but the other defendants deserve our support.

The best way we can show it is by continuing their work.

HLS is still open - close it!

Oxford Lab is still open - close it!

More UK Universities than ever conduct vivisection - close them!

Highgate farm is still open - close it!

Harrods is still selling fur!

You know what to do.......

@Winchester

Comments

Hide the following 16 comments

I am sorry Mate but....

01.09.2010 10:19

.."Two have already pleaded guilty, probably because they have no faith in the systems ability to deliver justice."

Is the silliest statement I have read on Indymedia and I have read alot. Have a word with yourself, it makes no sense.....

Aunty Christ

It means......

01.09.2010 10:53

"Gregg, Natasha and Dan, perhaps lacking faith in a fair trail, had admitted the charge and hence had a third deducted. In the case of Gregg and Natasha, they would otherwise have received 13.5 years! "

13.5 years for protest - justice?

That's what it means!

Lack Of Faith

re: I am sorry Mate but....

01.09.2010 12:26

Authy Christ:
'.."Two have already pleaded guilty, probably because they have no faith in the systems ability to deliver justice."

Is the silliest statement I have read on Indymedia and I have read alot. Have a word with yourself, it makes no sense..... '

You obviously have poor reading comprehension, because it makes perfect sense other than a missing apostrophe.

If you plead guilty, you get a reduced sentence compared to if you go to trial and get found guilty.

Thus, even if you don't believe you are guilty, it can be a calculated decision to plead guilty if you don't have faith in the justice system.

anon

Keep it real

01.09.2010 12:29

"activists face long prision terms for simply protesting against animal cruelty. "

Shac was a hardcore campaign and people did a lot more than simply protesting. This is not Iran.

Personally, I think this is a good time for the AR movement to start a fresh. These kind of 'smash em' campaigns have failed. Vivisection has increased despite a few little places closing. As boring as it sounds, we have to work with changing the law and with getting the public behind us not against us. I remember Heather telling me she didn't care what the public thought. That was Shac's biggest mistake.

Rod Munch

SHAC are still going strong globally

01.09.2010 13:19

SHAC UK was hit hard back in May 2007 (when these guys were nicked) but it has been over 3 years and the fight against HLS goes on. What we have learned? The fight against HLS can't be won in the UK alone as the British government have brought in new laws against simply protesting (SOCPA and Civil Injunctions) and are willing to spend big bucks protecting it. However SHAC has simply moved to HLS's week spot which is it's international clients, the governments of Switzerland, Russia, Mexico and France don't give a shit if HLS closes. If HLS loses companies from these countries as customers it closes. Simples, it is looking likely it will do soon as well.
No justice No peace
Smash HLS

Mike

Case Details

01.09.2010 13:43

it's also worth noting that the current case is subject to a media blackout as requested by some of the defendants......

R Friend

side shift

01.09.2010 16:40

I felt it was a bit silly too. For two reasons:

a) "probably because..."
This clearly means that the writer hasn't actually bothered to ask them and is just her own words into their mouths.

b) "If you plead guilty, you get a reduced sentence compared to if you go to trial and get found guilty. "
Yes.... thats right. But i'm really surprised that you came to the same blinded conclusion.

Perhaps you havn't looked at the broader picture:
Q. Out of 1000 murderers, how many would plead guilty if there was no incentive to do so?
A. None
Why: Because they have nothing to gain and everything to lose. There is no incentive to be honest.
Given the "carrot and stick" options, a lot of guilty people will be honest.

You have also neglected to consider the option that the people are actually guilty and are pleading that way because it is proven they are and can't worm their way out of it.

c) "13.5 years for protest - justice?"
I thought protesting was standing around.... protesting.
Protesting is not what these are guilty of. They have done... other things.

okay thats wrong

Silly judge

01.09.2010 16:53

There is no secret that the trial is taking place – the names of the defendants, the date and the location have already been published. Assuming that one of the defendants had made such a request and that the judge agreed, it cannot be applied retrospectively to what has already been published and can be found through a Google search. In any case, as one judge has discovered, it is simply not possible to discover who has posted messages on Indymedia because the IP addresses are not logged and the servers are encrypted.

Joss

@Joss

01.09.2010 17:28

Strawman arguments. I don't think anyone is trying to argument that points that you are arguing against!

Cum on my face

To any of the doubters...

01.09.2010 17:36

If we compare HLS' position now and back in 2007...

* Their debt has increased by $100million.
* Their shareholder base was obliterated in 2007-2008.
* They were about to be de-listed from NYSE ARCA and had to become a private company.
* Novartis one of HLS' largest customers has pulled out (they were a big target for SHAC prior to the arrests)
* HLS' lenders were unknown in 2007 but have now been identified.

Everything is still to play for... but only if people go out there and make it happen!

Good luck to all those on trial!

Solidarity

novartis

01.09.2010 20:13

Shac is still listing novartis as a priority target, choo on about willis?

Hello!

re: side shift

01.09.2010 20:29

"Perhaps you havn't looked at the broader picture:
Q. Out of 1000 murderers, how many would plead guilty if there was no incentive to do so?
A. None
Why: Because they have nothing to gain and everything to lose. There is no incentive to be honest. "

Yes, I understand why there are reduced sentences for pleading guilty. But that doesn't help if you actually aren't guilty but have the authorities out to get you however they can. It gives you the incentive to be dishonest and admit to something you aren't guilty of. I can't speak for this particular case, but I know it definitely happens.

"Protesting is not what these are guilty of. They have done... other things."

Like what? The SHAC defendants weren't accused of "other things", whatever that means. It was conspiracy to blackmail - basically just organising (legal) protests to get Huntingdon Life Sciences to stop torturing animals. Remember blackmail doesn't have to involve anything that is in itself illegal (e.g. sending a compromising photo of a politician to the papers). So technically any protest is "blackmail" since there is an implicit threat of further protest unless the demands are met.

The fact the authorities had to resort to blackmail charges shows they couldn't fit them up with any real charges. It's a case of criminalise everything and then use selective enforcement for political reasons. This should be worrying, whatever you think of vivisection.

anon

Demo in London this Friday

01.09.2010 23:07

Don't forget that there are still (peaceful!) SHAC demos in London every week, this week's is on Friday 3rd meeting outside St Paul's tube station, main exit for 11:00am.

anti-vivisectionist

Yes and no

02.09.2010 12:22

"Remember blackmail doesn't have to involve anything that is in itself illegal (e.g. sending a compromising photo of a politician to the papers). So technically any protest is "blackmail" since there is an implicit threat of further protest unless the demands are met."

Yes, blackmail does not necessarily require that the threat involve illegality.

But no, "any protest" would not be considered blackmail*. You are not helping by implying that what they did shouldn't have been considered blackmail. As far as I know, the details of the "mennace" have not been made public which is as it should be in a case of blackmail. But the judge/jury in the case would have been informed, at least in generalities.

So back to the example given. Simply sending that compromising picture to the papers not illegal. But using the threat "do thus and so or I will send the pictures" is illegal (blackmail). And the illegality does NOT depend on whether that "thus and so" is a good thing or a bad thing.

* NOTE -- I am NOT saying that ordinary protests could never be the "mennace". For example, you could perhaps be charged with blackmail for threatening to subject somebody to protests by leaking knowingly false information about them. Not the situation here.

MDN

SUBJUDICE!!!!

02.09.2010 16:09

For fucks sake the jury is hardly sworn in and there are handbags at dawn about the whys and wherefores....Leave the poor souls alone. No-one, not even the defendants knows exactly everything that has happened in the long campaign to close HLS. Let us wait until after the trial before post mortem eh? One thing is certain whatever your views, what ever your tactics not one of us is perfect.

Lynn Sawyer

Demos in Hampshire and Sussex

02.09.2010 16:47

SHAC South is still going strong, demos planned across Southern England (especially the Winchester area) - watch this space or contact shac to get involved:

info@shac.net

Steven

UK Indymedia