Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Drink Driving, Don't Risk It!

Animal rights activists convicted over laboratory hate campaign

View Video
Download Video

Video

Four animal rights activists face jail for their hate campaign
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 24 December 2008
FOUR animal rights activists face up to 14 years in jail after being found guilty yesterday of blackmailing companies who supplied Huntingdon Life Sciences.
Gerrah Selby, 20, Daniel Wadham, 21, Gavin Medd-Hall, 45, Heather Nicholson, 41, and Trevor Holmes, 51, were accused of orchestrating a campaign which ran between 2001 and 2007.

All five denied conspiracy to blackmail but Selby, Wadham, Medd-Hall and Nicholson were found guilty at Winchester Crown Court. Holmes was cleared of the charge.

One of the jurors refused to be seen in court while the verdict was announced, after 33 hours and 48 minutes of deliberation.

Selby, Wadham and Medd-Hall were released on conditional bail, while Nicholson was remanded in custody until sentencing on 19 January.

The maximum sentence for the offence is 14 years in prison.

Three other people – Gregg Avery, Natasha Avery and Daniel Amos – previously pleaded guilty to conspiracy to blackmail.

The group, called Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (Shac), used threats such as claiming that managers of the companies were paedophiles, hoax bomb parcels, criminal damage and threatening telephone calls to force them to cut links with the animal testing company.

The aim was to target suppliers or any company with a secondary link with Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS), based in Cambridge.

One of the features of intimidation included sending used sanitary towels in the post, saying they were contaminated with the Aids virus, and personal campaigns against the management of companies including daubing roads outside their homes with words like "Puppy Killer".

Detective Chief Inspector Andy Robbins, senior investigating officer of Kent Police, said outside court: "Today's verdict reflects the continuing commitment of law enforcement and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS] to bring to justice those who seek to repress reasonable discussion and who commit serious offences in the name of animal rights."

He paid tribute to the victims of the "systematic and relentless intimidation" which lasted for six years until arrests were made on 1 May, 2007.

The defendants were linked to criminal activity in Europe and America, targeting companies there.

The CPS reviewing lawyer, Alastair Nisbet, said outside the court: "This has been a long and very detailed investigation which was made all the more difficult by the fact that the defendants concealed their criminal activities behind a cloak of lawful protest by their use of encryption and file-wiping software on their computers and by the routine destruction of any documents that they thought might incriminate them."

HLS defended its right to use animal testing as a "small but essential" part of researching and developing new medicines.

An HLS spokesman said: "Freedom of expression and lawful protest are important rights in our democratic society but so too is the right to conduct vital biomedical research, or to support organisations that perform such research, without being harassed and threatened."

The latest prosecution provides another example of the lengths some animal rights extremists are prepared to go to.

Activists opposed to a farm in Yoxall, Staffordshire, where guinea pigs were bred for research, dug up the grave of Gladys Hammond, the mother-in-law of one of the owners, in October 2004 as part of a hate campaign which led to the farm's closure.


FACT BOX

INSTEAD of targeting the animal testing company directly, leaders of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) decided to target its suppliers to make it impossible for HLS to operate.

Their tactics ranged from personal attacks by incorrectly branding company directors paedophiles, through to posting used sanitary towels and hoax bomb parcels.

One PA was targeted and had her house and car daubed with paint saying ALF (Animal Liberation Front) and "puppy killer". A scientist who worked for GlaxoSmithKline was targeted in a similar way, and an employee of Novartis had letters sent to his neighbours falsely saying he was a serial sex offender who went abroad to abuse children.

The managing director of a chemicals company said his family's life was turned into a "living hell" for six months when he was targeted by SHAC. A hoax bomb was sent to his home.

Page 1 of 1

 
1

Mercutio,

24/12/2008 00:15:39
I hope these lunatics receive severe sentences,society should be protected from these self-righteous fanatics.
2

Guga II,

Rockall 24/12/2008 01:30:05
Campaigning against cruelty to animals is one thing, but these people are, in reality, terrorists, and should be dealt with accordingly.
3

Waus,

safety bay 24/12/2008 06:47:29
Nice to see these nutters getting banged up for up to 14 years imprisonment,The only shame is British justice is too lenient but it's better than letting them of lightly i just cant believe that Judge gave them bail!!
4

Compassionb4greed,

Australia 24/12/2008 07:33:35
Before you pass judgement, it may be that these people did break the law but the question on everyones lips should be WHY?

Laws in the UK as in Australia no doubt protect animal abusers and abusive industries to the point where there is a failure to ensure protection of animals by way of legislation because the legislation is not enforced. Is it therefore any wonder why people get frustrated and take the law into their own hands?

If humans were compassionate and caring the likes of Huntington Life Sciences would cease to exist because there would be no need to force feed beagles and small monkeys fertilisers, cigarette smoke, chemical cleaners to name a few experiments.

So before you all jump on the 'nutters' wagon, think about the message they were trying to tell the world, that animals deserve our love and protection not serial abuse, pain and suffering.

We can hardly call ourselves 'decent' or caring or even claim to love animals when we so openly support legal cruelty.

Ask yourselves- would you trade places with the animals experimented on?

No bet you bloody wouldnt!
5

brianmca3,

auld reekie 24/12/2008 08:03:55
aye loonies ok,but all who voted in liebour and fib dem councilors ,will be happy that if the granton tram line,goes ahead the part at roseburn end,will see badgers and foxes eradicated by any means by the contractors,thus a form of legal fox hunting taking place
badgers live there,so how are they going to shift them,and the foxes
trees,and all the life support these give to birds etc ,will all be gone,they are already marked with metal discs
all this so ravelston numpties get home without using their cars
6

Sioux Man Chu,

24/12/2008 08:14:37
#4 - Agree, however nature abhors a vaccuum and others will take their place. Can't see why we can't use the prison population for these experiments. Wouldn't bother me if child murderers and paedos were used in stead of helpless beasts. But that would be down to their 'human rights'wouldn't it?
7

Gdgy,

24/12/2008 08:46:34
Good to see these "humans" being severely dealt with....the interview on Radio 4 with the AR fanatic was the worst piece of PR they have ever done....
8

Unimpressed one,

24/12/2008 09:05:39
#4, "Think about the message they were trying to tell the world"

That it's OK to maim and even kill all for the sake of a personal cause. The Islamic terrorists say the same thing. Would you like to argue the point with a fellow Australian who has lost a friend or relative in the Bali bombings? But then I forgot, the fundamentalists were inspired by the Osama Bin Laden of animals rights, Australian nutter Peter singer.
9

Luke Skywalker,

24/12/2008 09:21:17
#6 - brian (presumably called brian because you certainly could not be named Brain). The tram is an excellent and essential piece of modern infrastructure required to move the population about with minimal damage to the environment thus allowing your badgers and other wild animals the uncontaminated land and air that they require. If the good people of Ravelston (it should have a capital R, brian) do not continue to work in their industrious and efficient manner then you will find that there is no money for your benefits. Once you have completed your education (funded by the taxes of the people of Ravelston) then you may be competent to comment on worthwhile projects such as the tram and badger protection.

brian, I do wish you a contented Christmas.
10

11+failed,

the pans 24/12/2008 09:29:03
4 & 9
I suppose Peter Singer thought his grandparents murder by the Nazis was justified by Hitler's love of animals and his dogs in particular.
11

Compassionb4greed,

Australia 24/12/2008 09:37:58
#9 and #11- you miss the point. I do not support or condone violence against anyone as much as I dont support or condone violence against animals either.

If you can imagine seeing a child being hit and or berated constantly by the parents, the law fails to protect the child- you feel like you want to take the child away. Its not your place neither is it lawful - but all you want is to stop the pain and suffering.

And I certainly agree with #5, these people make true progress by animal advocates a damn sight harder,if not near impossible, but look beyond what your eyes dont want to see...
12

Compassionb4greed,

Australia 24/12/2008 09:39:22
BTW- Peter Singer has nothing to do with this issue.

Singer advocates compassion for ALL animals including human animals.
13

11+failed,

The pans 24/12/2008 09:49:00
12 Compassionb4greed
You are just an apologist for some of the most despicable criminal elements in our society, no matter how you try to dress it up.
14

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 24/12/2008 09:56:19
Resonates with oher fanatical nutters, terrorists, Green people, etc. Common denominator? Blind and deep faith in the "cause" no matter its outcome on the global scheme of things and people. I suspect these "animal rights" criminals long abandoned any real concern for animals in favour of the excitement of the violence and intimidation, brightening up their otherwise pathetic lives.

15

Alan B,

24/12/2008 10:23:46
#Compassionb4greed

I think it is you who is missing the point. Society has to decide on moral issues at large. You may not agree with what the majority view but for society to function you have to accept it while arguing your case in a democratic way.

These people are the scum that cannot accept society at large does not take their view. And then they attack and harm others because they have a different view.

We can see the same thing with the nutters in the US who attack doctors for doing abortions etc.

Yes there are moral issues like should we eat meat, wear leather, and test drugs for medical purposes on animals.

What is not acceptable is for people to decide that it is ok to inflict harm on others that take a different view to society generally becuase they disagree with them.

Personally I am pro animal testing for medical purposes.
16

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 24/12/2008 10:36:25
#4:

"...the question on everyones lips should be WHY?"

Simple. Because they are stupid. They published the pictures of this band of idiots in this paper yesterday. You can tell by the look of their faces that the lights are on but no-one is at home.

They deserve what they get---as do all "anti" lunatics.
17

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 24/12/2008 11:52:39
#18:

I use the term "anti" advisedly. Maybe I should have used the term "insane fanatic" instead.

BTW: Did you see the mug-shots of these morons yesterday? If so then the kind of person I am talking about should be absolutely clear.
18

Darien,

Panama 24/12/2008 11:58:58
"FOUR animal rights activists face up to 14 years in jail"

Next will hopefully be those institutionalised animal rights fundamentalist crazies in RSPB, SNH etc.
19

Phil1,

Edinburgh 24/12/2008 12:29:54
4 Compassionb4greed,Australia 24/12/2008 07:33:35

Yes the message they were telling the wold was If you do not do what want they want they will try and kill you or ruin your life. Their views are the only ones that count in this world not yours.
They are sneaky, lying, cheating bullys and what they want they get over your dead body or your mothers.
What they do will be excused by peacnicks and appeasers because they like think animals are more important than people.

So compassionate4 greed I for one know exactly what these rats are like and if I had a bucket of water I know where I would put the scum.
20

sam the god,

24/12/2008 14:47:32
a good bit of hemp is needed
21

decent one,

24/12/2008 15:23:12
Nobody died, maybe they should be put to death.

You can murder somebody and receive a lesser sentence in our lovely money orientated country.
22

It's life but not as we know it,

The Oort Clouds 24/12/2008 15:54:55
They're like the Muslims - specially protected. A light slap across the wrists is all you can expect for them.
23

Alan B,

24/12/2008 15:58:50
#26 Give your bnp type nonsense a rest.
24

It's life but not as we know it,

The Oort Clouds 24/12/2008 16:04:04
#27 Oh sorry I spoke. I forgot us "infidels" have no right to life. Stupid me.
25

It's life but not as we know it,

The Oort Clouds 24/12/2008 16:06:45
#27 again

Pray do tell me: do you think your female relatives should be forced to wear the burkha and be denied education and the right to drive a car? You are a real little liberal if you do aren't you? And is the Muslim cause to kill all homosexuals right as well? Come on. Don't be shy. Explain.
26

decent one,

24/12/2008 16:12:56
SOME muslims wish to kill everybody not like them
SOME animal rights activists get convicted of blackmail

... and the similarities are ?
27

It's life but not as we know it,

The Oort Clouds 24/12/2008 16:18:27
Murderers are murderers and the Koran clearly states it is every Muslim's duty to rid the world of infidels. We don't exactly see the masses of them march in protest when some Christians or Jews get slauthered by their terrorist factions.
28

Phil Beaven,

Swindon 24/12/2008 17:09:42
I know some of these people and they are not extremists or violent. Someone please tell me of any occasion when anyone has been hurt by an animal rights activist. They, like a lot of people, are against the extremists who carry out cruel and unecessary experiments on animals. Some of these extremists use gratuitous violence on the animals. These people are scum and need to be stopped. I for one will be increasing my contributions to the 'Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty' campaign
29

decent one,

24/12/2008 17:23:58
Well said Phil !
30

Dhammadinna,

Bulgaria 24/12/2008 17:33:17
It's naive to think that the government only wants to suppress violent or threatening animal rights activities. The claim that they respect peaceful protest is nonsense. In fact they want to discredit and destroy all animal rights activity, and use violent actions as an excuse. And the most innocuous and harmless actions -- such as handing someone the same leaflet twice -- can be criminalized nowadays.
In this campaign by the government and animal-abusing industries, the term 'extremist' is used to confuse 'extreme' opinions with 'extreme' actions.
Whatever some individuals have done, the SHAC website only invites people to send polite letters and emails to companies trading with HLS, urging them to stop doing so. I have sent such emails often and intend to continue until researchers give up the morally unjustifiable practice of animal experimentation.
Thanks compassionb4profit, Phil Beaven, and decent one, for standing up for the animals.
31

Jamsyke,

Scotland 24/12/2008 17:52:30
#34
"the term extremist is used to confuse extreme opinions with extreme actions"

You seem to confuse legal actions with illegal actions. Illegal actions are being used to terrorise law-abiding citizens and companies.

When you break the law your reasons become irrelevent.
32

IainA,

Edinburgh 24/12/2008 18:51:06
#4 Compassionb4greed

"Before you pass judgement, it may be that these people did break the law but the question on everyones lips should be WHY?"

No it shouldn't. The question should be, if these laws are unjust and unfair, why aren't these activists bending their efforts to have them changed? Campaigns of intimidation, threats and blackmail are self indulgent. If "these people" really care about animal welfare they should be trying to get the law changed and to change peoples attitudes. The campaign against Huntingdon has just left them looking like thugs. If they really want to stop animal experimentation they should try an approach that doesn't.
33

Hugo of Garven,

24/12/2008 19:41:44
"animal rights extremists"

Nonsense.

They are terrorists.

They stepped away over the line of legitimate protest.

How proud their parents must be.
34

brianmca3,

auld reekie 24/12/2008 21:32:33
#10
you try to be witty,but like most middle class tossers,your about as funny as a f@rt in a spacesuit,yes i have finished my education,years ago,are you trying to write comedy lines ,for the comic book guy on the simpsons?,you lot are not the only ones who pay tax
lets look at the no13 bus
it was stopped from being a service to those of lochend
yet ravelston gits get it,the reason ,according to lrt,was that ravelston subbed it
hairy ar*ed boll*cks
when you go through the area,all you see is one or even two cars in the drives,also a high percentage of retired civil service tw@ts
who take the free bus pass,when clearly they dont need it
stand tutting in sainsbury,when some people from out side the catchmeant area shop there
i see by your name ,you sound geekish and a total space cadet
may the fleas of a thousand camels infest your rectum
and BAH HUMBUG to you
35

Dave James,

Las Vegas, Nevada 25/12/2008 07:01:06
If you can justify what these creatins did then there is little that you will not justify, torture, assasinations, murder, or what ever. There are legal means in every developed country to restrain the use of animals in research. No, we do not have to use animals for some experiments, PETA members will do just fine, but you don't hear them volunteering.

By the way, do you know that there are laws on the books that force doctors to keep people alive under the same diagnosis that if they were animals the vets would go to jail for inhumane treatment.
36

Compassionb4greed,

Australia 25/12/2008 07:27:59
Hell, 16, 17 and 21 and 23 Read your statements and tell the world you are not extremists who oppose all other views.

I did not miss the point. Regardless of their actions and again I stress I do not condone violence..need it spelled out in big letters?,but their message was that it is unacceptable to be cruel to other species because we want to.

Animal experimentation is unecessary, cruel and abusive and given we are in a supposedly humane society how can anyone think that pouring lighter fluid into the eyes of a rabbit is humane or necessary.

The ones who endorse experimentation are those who financially gain from it and that includes experimenters. As for you Alan B #16, I am sure you are pro cruelty and abuse for it is these two acts that society tries to dress up in some sort of respectable box. And to 21- these people may or may not think animals are more important than people- do you know or are you making a bloody big assumption? Animal advocates do not think animals are more important just deserving of compassion and respect something many of you posting on this blog fail to comprehend. As humans are supposed to be of a higher species we are supposed to protect animals not treat them with hatred, or treat them as though their lives are worthless. How arrogant and ignorant of us to do so.



37

Wolf1957,

North Carolina is home, Currently in Afghanistan 25/12/2008 07:58:19
#31 "...the Koran clearly states it is every Muslim's duty to rid the world of infidels."

Before you take off on such rants, you might want to actually read the Qur'an. The Qur'an makes no such statement.

(2:256) “There is no compulsion in religion.”
This is the clearest statement in the Qur’an against spreading religion by the sword.

(18:29) “The Truth is from your Lord; so let him who please believe and let him who please disbelieve.”

Terrorism is terrorism and can't be "dressed up." Apologists for such acts are complicit in them.

And no, I'm not a Muslim. I'm a professional soldier who has been in Iraq and Afghanistan for most of the past six years.
38

danbob,

25/12/2008 10:02:20
It says in the book of Genesis that it is mans duty to look after the animals. Not inject them with toxins and carry out other totaly useless and pointless experiments that benefit nobody but money making organisations.
39

Joanna (actually),

25/12/2008 10:04:43
#32 Animal rights activists harm a human -- gee, I don't know. How do you think it feels to have your mother or grandmother dug out of her grave? To have your children's live's threatened, to have bombs come to your door, to think you have touched a used tampon full of AIDS? I would expect those people are shaking with fear and shock in a way that is completely illegal for animals to be treated in UK laboratories. I would expect they suffer the sorts of long term changes in behaviour that are classified as "suffering" when discovered in pigs raised in factory farms. I expect their children do worse at school and become antisocial and generally ruin their lives. Is that harm?

The way to tell when something is self-aggrandizing political extremism is to look at whether the goals are well ordered. Do they care more about foxes that live normal lives until their death, salmon that live *and* die quite naturally, well treated laboratory animals that live in family groups, or do they care about pigs that go insane from solitary confinement and self harm in factory farms and rats that are killed cruelly by cities (or cats!) Pigs are smarter than dogs, and rats smarter than salmon, so presumably they suffer more.

The animals are just an excuse to bring in the money and the press, and the adulation that makes these people feel like they've done something meaningful with their lives. I guess stopping medical research has some meaning, but I'm not sure it's a good one.
40

Joanna (actually),

25/12/2008 10:12:47
#40 I don't make money from animal experiments (at least not directly, I suppose I am healthier due to them) and neither do most of the members of Pro-Test. Most academic researchers at least could make a lot more money in industry but choose to increase human knowledge because they care about the world, and about animal lives. The industrial PAs who have been harassed I suppose make no more or less money than if they'd found any other job. I've known people who have had their work destroyed who had dedicated their lives to animal welfare. But claiming you can give _rights_ to something that doesn't know about responsibilities is an insult to the victims of _human_ rights abuse.
41

Angus,

Alexandria 25/12/2008 11:49:53
I don't support violence against any animal - human or otherwise. But it seems to me that those in animal laborities are more violent to those animals that are subject to experinemts, than ever were the actions of the activists against them.

To jail them for attempting to stop cruelty by direct action when the government takes no action to prevent cruelty is, in my view, quite wrong.

Little wonder we live is a society dominated by an uncontrollable level of violence.

42

Jamsyke,

Scotland 26/12/2008 15:45:29
#45 We have laws in this country. Nobody is above the law. If you think it's ok to take "direct action" whenever you feel like it then you are potentially a danger to society and any authorities reading this should add your details to the criminal intelligence database.

In what context is it wrong to jail someone who broke the law?
43

Phil Beaven,

Swindon 26/12/2008 16:12:24
#43
If by having someone dug out of your grave, you are referring to Gladys Hammond then you should really ask the question of North Staffordshire Police who were behind this. In the event no one was ever charged.

The people behind the SHAC campaign have been campaigning legally for years. Previously we had great success closing places like Consort, Hillgrove and Shamrock. It just happens that the Government changed the laws to protect their paymasters in the pharmceutical companies. Don't forget it was David Sainsbury, the unelected Science minister who initiated thesr draconian laws. The Government uses taxpayers money ( I have paid tax for 46 years) to pay Huntingdon Life Sciences bills. My MP has been trying for over a year to get the Government to give me a figure of how much is being wasted supporting this evil and corrupt company and he cannot get a reply.
44

Angus,

Alexandria 26/12/2008 16:49:40
46 Jamsyke

Direct action has changed things for what many people regard as the better on many occasions.

If the punishment should fit the crime, these activitists didn’t indulge in torture and murder like that which goes on in vivisection labs.

Do you never break the law? If you drive can you put your hand on heart and say you never exceed 30mph in a restricted zone or park where you shouldn’t?

Or does not being above the law only apply to others?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.