In 1994, the scientific community mounted its first major lobbying campaign of the modern era demanding stronger laws against extremists. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill was passing through parliament. This law made it illegal for anyone to trespass on land in the open air with the intent of preventing someone from doing something they had a legal right to do.

RDS, a predecessor of Understanding Animal Research, campaigned for an amendment to apply the law inside buildings. Despite extensive support from MPs, the bill was passed without the amendment. However, the Labour Government later passed it by simply removing the words 'in the open air' from the section of the Act about aggravated trespass. Thus the common animal rights tactic of disruptive 'office invasions' became a criminal offence.

But there was still no specific law dealing with animal rights extremism (ARE). The Prevention of Terrorism Act was designed to deal primarily with terrorism in Northern Ireland. In 1986 the Special Branch had set up a police intelligence gathering unit, the Animal Rights National Index (ARNI), but its task was restricted to collating information and advising regional police forces - it had no operational role.

After its remit had been extended, Anti-Terrorist Branch officers became involved in animal rights policing for the first time in 1991. But Dr Mark Matfield, then RDS Executive Director, later commented*: 'It is all too obvious that the law does not provide any kind of deterrent to those motivated to break in, burn or bomb in the name of animal liberation.'

Over the next 10 years the tactics of animal rights extremism changed. The prevailing problem at the turn of the 21st century was covert, insidious intimidation and harassment of individuals - often people who worked for suppliers who had no direct involvement in animal research. This posed a huge challenge in terms of prevention, detection, evidence gathering and successful criminal prosecution.

RDS became part of a coalition campaigning for a dedicated animal  rights extremism law. At the last minute, only days before the third reading of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill in 2005, Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt announced a new amendment which was to make it a criminal offence to cause 'economic damage' through organised campaigns of intimidation.

It became illegal to disrupt the lawful functioning of a business or other organisation holding an animal experimentation or breeding licence. The Bill also protected suppliers and customers working with animal research organisations.

The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, which came into force in July 2005, filled other loopholes in the law. Demonstrations through so called 'home visits' became illegal, though only if it could be proved there was intent to cause alarm or distress. In one widely reported 'home visit' about 300 demonstrators had congregated outside the home of a leading scientist, but more often home visits involved a handful of activists.

*Matfield M (1994) How the law deals with animal rights extremism RDS News October p16.

 

Laws, injunctions and policing

 

A number of laws and civil remedies and better policing have proved effective against animal rights extremism (ARE) in the UK. Extremists have been prosecuted successfully under conspiracy and blackmail laws.

We outline sections dealing with ARE in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and the use of injunctions by institutions seeking greater protection from intimidation, as well as the national police response to ARE.

Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005

Aims to prevent and detect serious organised crime and contribute to the reduction of such crime in other ways and to mitigate is consequences, and created the Serious Organised Crime Agency to achieve these goals. Specific to the ARE threat, the Act aims to tackle attacks on the supply chain, prevent personal intimidation, target organisers and planners of unlawful activity, and allow only peaceful protest and persuasion. See especially:

• Section 125: Harassment intended to deter lawful activities. Extends the Protection from Harassment Act 1997
• Section 126: Harassment etc of a person in his home. Creates a new offence of harassment of a person in his/her home.
• Section 127: Harassment etc: police direction to stay away from person's home. Amends Section 42 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001
• Section 145: Interference with contractual relationships so as to harm animal research organisation. Creates a new offence aimed at preventing economic damage to animal research organisations.
• Section 146: Intimidation of persons connected with animal research organisation - Creates a new offence aimed at preventing intimidation.
• Section 147: Penalty for offences under sections 145 and 146.
• Section 148: Animal research organisations. For the purposes of Sections 145 and 146, defines ‘animal research organisations'.
• Section 149: Extension of sections 145 to 147. Puts in place a procedure whereby Sections 145-147 of the Act may be extended to other persons or organisations.

Injunctions

Injunctions are among the civil remedies used increasingly by institutions to protect themselves from persecution by animal rights extremists. Simply put, an injunction is a writ issued by a court (a High Court in the UK) ordering someone to do something, ordering someone not to do something, or ordering someone to do something according to a certain set of defined criteria. For example:

• Protest location, time, character, and duration are restricted.
• Exclusion zones are created around company/institution/personal property, from which protestors are barred entry.
• Specific forms of harassment of protected persons (photographing them or their vehicles, following them, etc) are prohibited.
• Abusive communications - letters, packages, defamatory public notices - are prohibited.
• Violations of the orders given in an injunction are criminal offences, and are punishable by imprisonment or fine or both.

The use of injunctions as anti-ARE tools, and the stiffening of penalties imposed by injunctions, seem to have had a significant deterrent effect. This in turn serves to boost morale within the protected organisation. If institutions or organisations with common links band together in a unified protective front, as five Japanese biosciences companies systematically targeted by SHAC did in 2003 when they all filed injunctions on the same day, this sends an even stronger message.

Police reform

The National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit (NETCU) was established in 2001, as part of the national policing response to domestic extremism, including animal rights extremism. However, insufficient progress was made until a National Coordinator for Domestic Extremism was appointed in July 2004. This increased commitment led to a significant rise in the number of arrests and prosecutions of animal rights activists.

IMAGE: Laws and civil injunctions were used successfully to enable  Oxford University to complete the construction of its new biomedical  research facility.