Harlan Laboratories UK Ltd & Anor v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty ("SHAC") & Anor

The First Claimant, Harlan Laboratories UK Limited, breeds animals for medical and clinical research and has therefore been the target of anti-vivisectionist campaigns.

The Claimants issued a Part 8 claim against the Defendants on 15^th July 2011, seeking interim and permanent injunctive relief under sections 3 and 3A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (“PHA 1997”) and section 37 Supreme Court Act 1981.

Interim injunctions were granted by the High Court on 15^th July, 2^nd August, 5^th October and 1^st November 2011, and then on 7^th and 21^st March 2012.

The Claimants now apply for summary judgment under CPR rule 24.2, and permanent injunctions.

Under the PHA 1997, only individuals can be victims of harassment, not corporate entities, because of the express restriction of the term “person” to individuals in section 7(5), which provides:

“(5)

References to a person, in the context of the harassment of a person, are references to a person who is an individual.”

This was confirmed in Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors [2011] EWCA Civ 123, per Rix LJ at [57], Kosar v Bank of Scotland plc [2011] EWHC 1050 (Admin), per Silber J. at [3] – [9].

The PHA was amended with effect from 1^st July 2005 by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, section 125. The Explanatory Notes to s.125 explained the effect of the amendment:

“A number of companies have been granted injunctions under section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (‘the 1997 Act’) to protect their employees from harassment by animal rights protestors. Despite this, it is not clear how far the 1997 Act can be used to protect employees of a company or a company itself …

Section 125 seeks to address this. Subsection (2) amends section 1 of the 1997 Act by inserting a new subsection (1A) which makes it an offence for a person to pursue a course of conduct involving the harassment of two or more persons on separate occasions which he knows or ought to know involves harassment and the purpose of which is to persuade any person (not necessarily one of the persons being harassed) not to do something he is entitled to do or to do something he is not under any obligation to do. It is not intended to catch lawful lobbying or peaceful protesting. … The sort of behaviour which will engage the new offence is activity involving threats and intimidation which forces an individual or individuals to stop doing lawful business with another company or with another individual.”

In Astellas Pharma v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty [2011] EWCA Civ 752, Moore-Bick LJ said, at [7]:

“When the statute was enacted it applied only to simple harassment by one person of another, but the legislation was amended by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 by the addition of subsection 1(1A) which prohibits the harassment of two or more persons with a view to persuading a third person to act or refrain from acting in a particular way. The proceedings in the present case were brought under that subsection, one purpose of which was to prohibit the harassment of employees or members of their families or others in order to put pressure on a third party.”

Where an individual or a corporate entity claims that it is a third party whom the harasser seeks to persuade, within the meaning of section 1(1A)(c), it can apply for an injunction under section 3A to prevent the harassment of individuals under section 1A(a). Applicants for an injunction under section 3A are not confined to individuals. Section 7(5) only restricts the meaning of “person” to an individual “in the context of the harassment of a person”. The Interpretation Act 1978, by section 5 and schedule 1, provides that, unless a contrary intention shall appear, the term “Person” shall include a body of persons corporate or unincorporated. So a corporate entity may apply for an injunction under section 3A.

This interpretation of the PHA 1997 was confirmed in Smithkline Beecham PLC v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, Animal Liberation Front & Ors [2009] EWHC 1488 (QB), per Jack J. at [40] – [43]. Jack J’s analysis was applied in AGC Chemicals Europe Ltd v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty [2010] EWHC 3674 (QB), in which five companies applied for injunctive relief. The grant of injunctive relief was upheld on appeal in Astellas Pharma v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty [2011] EWCA Civ 752, where the companies’ entitlement to apply for injunctive relief was not challenged.

The First Claimant, Harlan Laboratories UK Limited, is the UK subsidiary of Harlan Laboratories Inc., a company incorporated in the USA. Harlan Laboratories Inc. has subsidiaries in other countries too. Collectively, they are referred to as “the Harlan Group”. The First Claimant contends that directors and employees of companies within the Harlan Group may need the protection of an injunction against harassment when visiting the First Claimant. Although it is apparent from the claim form, evidence and interim orders that the First Claimant has, from the outset, sought to represent members of all the Harlan Group of companies, the claim form did not properly plead this. Therefore I make an order under CPR rule 19.6 permitting the First Claimant to act on behalf of its own officers and employees and the officers and employees of Harlan Laboratories Inc. and its subsidiaries worldwide. I grant permission to amend the claim form and title of the action accordingly.

The Second Claimant, who is Mr T.R. Wasky, Chief Security Officer, of the First Claimant, represents the First Claimant’s officers and employees, as well as the “clients, suppliers and service providers”. It is now accepted by counsel for the Claimants that the First Claimant’s “clients” should not be included in this list, on the facts of this case. For the reasons I have already given, only the individual officers and employees of the suppliers and service providers can be victims of harassment under the PHA 1997, not the corporate entities themselves. I amend the representation order under CPR rule 19.6, and grant permission to the First Claimant to amend the title of the action and the Claim Form accordingly.

The First and Second Defendants have been sued as unincorporated associations, by a named representative in each case. As an unincorporated association is not a legal entity, it cannot be sued solely in its own name.

There are numerous past authorities in which campaigning organisations have been sued through named representatives. In Michaels (Furriers) Limited v Askew, Court of Appeal, Times Law Report 25^th June 1983, Dunn LJ stated that Animal Aid was ‘an unincorporated association campaigning against cruelty to animals.’ He said that the court had no knowledge of its membership, constitution or finances. He stated:

“Care must be taken to ensure that Order 15 rule 12 is not abused. But where a number of unidentified persons are causing injury and damage by unlawful acts of one kind or another, and there is an arguable case that they belong to a single organisation or class which encourages action of the type complained of, and their actions can be linked to that organisation, then the rule enables the court to do justice in the particular case.”

Purchas LJ stated that the first question to be answered was whether there was evidence that Animal Aid was “an identifiable if informal organisation of people having the same interest in the proceedings, namely an interest in furthering the campaign against the fur trade and/or by defending proceedings designed to inhibit the furtherance of that campaign.” He concluded that there was a real prospect of the claimants establishing this.

Having considered the evidence of Mr T.R. Wasky, Chief Security Officer, of the First Claimant, I am satisfied that Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (“SHAC”) is an organisation campaigning against the Claimants, and that Mr Greg Avery is a prominent member and co-ordinator of SHAC, and is properly named as its representative under CPR rule 19.6. In reaching this conclusion, I have taken into account that he has been the subject of representative orders in previous proceedings against SHAC, including Invesco UK Ltd v SHAC, Claim No. HQ11X00986, 8^th July 2011. Furthermore, when sentenced by Butterfield J. at Winchester Crown Court on 21^st January 2009, it was on the basis that he was a co-founder and co-ordinator of SHAC. Mr Avery was released from prison in 2011 and he has not opposed the representation order made in respect of him.

Having considered the evidence of Mr T.R. Wasky, Chief Security Officer, of the First Claimant, I am satisfied that the National Anti-Vivisection Alliance (“NAVA”) is an organisation campaigning against the Claimants and that Mr Luke Steele was properly named as its representative. He has been described as its Chairperson and spokesperson in media and internet reports, including his own facebook page, and he has been appointed a representative by the court in other proceedings against NAVA (see Eli Lilly & Co. v SHAC, NAVA and Others, Claim No. HQ11X03788, 8^th November 2012). In these proceedings Mr Steele has actively taken on the role of representative, serving a skeleton argument with evidence in support, and communicating with the Claimants’ solicitor.

His active role in the protests against the Claimants is established by his conviction at Birmingham Crown Court on 27^th July 2012 of offences at the Leicestershire site of the First Claimant, contrary to sections 145 and 146 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. He was also convicted of refusing to disclose his encryption key under section 53 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

On 9^th October 2012, he made a witness statement in which he applied to be removed as representative for NAVA. He said that since January 2012 he had ceased all involvement in the activities of NAVA, and that he was now pursuing an academic career in biological sciences. In paragraph 4 he said “I am informed that this position shall be filled with persons of NAVA’s appointment”.

The Claimants opposed his application for removal unless or until a new representative was nominated by NAVA in his place, since NAVA is an unincorporated association which must be represented by a named person. No nomination has been forthcoming. Regrettably Mr Steele has not attended court or instructed a representative to attend court on his behalf, though he must have appreciated from the terms of the order made by Underhill J. on 8^th November 2012, which were sent to him by email, that he had to attend court to pursue his application. I do not accept that he was prevented from attending court because of the terms of his licence preventing contact with the other parties to the claim, in view of the efforts made by the Claimants’ solicitor to ensure that he was not held to be in breach of licence. In those circumstances, I am not satisfied that it is appropriate to remove him as representative for NAVA under CPR 19.6(2).

I make an order in similar terms to that made by Underhill J. in the Eli Lilly case, namely, that Mr Steele do have liberty to make a formal application to be removed from the position of representative of NAVA within 21 days of the date of this order. The application should be supported by a witness statement explaining why he has not attended the hearing on 14^th & 15^th November and explaining steps taken to provide a substitute representative.

The Third Defendant is “Persons Unknown who are conducting or may conduct protests and/or unlawful activities against the Claimants”.

In Hampshire Waste Services Ltd v Sheffield Environmental Services Ltd [2003] EWHC 1738 (Ch), the Vice-Chancellor held that where a claimant cannot name any of the protestors, they may be joined as defendants by description rather than by name, provided the description is sufficiently certain to identify both those who are included and those who are not (at [6] – [10]). He cited in support his own judgment in Bloomsbury Publishing plc v Newsgroup Limited [2003] 1 WLR 1633, where, at paragraph 21 of the judgment he said:

“The crucial point, as it seems to me, is that the description used must be sufficiently certain as to identify both those who are included and those who are not. If that test is satisfied then it does not seem to me to matter that the description may apply to no one or to more than one person nor that there is no further element of subsequent identification whether by service or otherwise.”

This approach was considered by the Court of Appeal in Astellas Pharma v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty [2011] EWCA Civ 752, per Ward LJ at [33] – [36]. It has been adopted in a number of similar cases to this one. On 8th July 2010, Holroyde J made an order in favour of Invesco UK Limited against SHAC and Persons Unknown. On 9^th August 2011 Edwards-Stuart J made an order in favour of Astellas Pharma Limited against SHAC, ALF and Persons Unknown. On 1^st November 2011, Spencer J made an order in favour of Eli Lilli & Co. against SHAC and Persons Unknown.

On the basis of the evidence of Mr T.R. Wasky, I am satisfied that it is legitimate for the Claimants to pursue their claim against “Persons Unknown”, as well as the First and Second Defendants, because of the broad spectrum of protestors against vivisection, who may not be members of either SHAC or NAVA. To meet the requirements of clarity, the description of those individuals should be limited to “those who are protesting or conducting unlawful activities against the Claimants”. It should not include, as it does at present, those who may do so. I consider it is appropriate to include “protestors” within the class of “Persons Unknown”. Although protesting is not of itself unlawful, under the terms of the interim orders and the proposed permanent order, those who wish to protest are restricted in the manner in which they can do so, and therefore any protestor is potentially liable if he does not comply with the order.

The application for summary judgment, together with the evidence in support, and details of the permanent injunction sought, has been served on the First and Second Defendants and their representatives, and on protestors who have been in contact with the Claimants’ solicitors in connection with this litigation.

The Claimants bring their claim under the PHA 1997. The material provisions provide:

“1.

Prohibition of harassment

(1)

A person must not pursue a course of conduct -

(a)

which amounts to harassment of another, and

(b)

which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

(1A) A person must not pursue a course of conduct -

(a)

which involves harassment of two or more persons, and

(b)

which he knows or ought to know involves harassment of those persons, and

(c)

by which he intends to persuade any person (whether or not one of those mentioned above) –

(i)

not to do something that he is entitled or required to do, or

(ii)

to do something that he is not under any obligation to do.

(2)

For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other.

3.

Civil remedy

(1)

An actual or apprehended breach of section 1 may be the subject of a claim in civil proceedings by the person who is or may be the victim of the course of conduct in question.

(2)

On such a claim, damages may be awarded for (among other things) any anxiety caused by the harassment and any financial loss resulting from the harassment…

3A Injunctions to protect persons from harassment within section 1(1)(a)

(1)

This section applies where there is an actual or apprehended breach of section 1(1A) by any person (“the relevant person”).

(2)

In such a case –

(a)

any person who is or may be a victim of the course of conduct in question, or

(b)

any person who is or may be a person falling within section 1(1A)(c),

may apply to the High Court or a county court for an injunction restraining the relevant person from pursuing any conduct which amounts to harassment in relation to any person or persons mentioned or described in the injunction.

7.

Interpretation of this group of sections

(2)

References to harassing a person include alarming the person or causing the person distress.

(3)

A ‘course of conduct’ must involve

(a)

in the case of conduct in relation to a single person, conduct on at least two occasions in relation to that person, or

(b)

in the case of conduct in relation to two or more persons (see section 1(1A)), conduct on at least one occasion in relation to each of those persons.

(3A) A person's conduct on any occasion shall be taken, if aided, abetted, counselled and procured by another –

(a)

to be conduct on that occasion of the other (as well as conduct of the person whose conduct it is …

(4)

‘Conduct’ includes speech.

(5)

References to a person, in the context of the harassment of a person, are references to a person who is an individual.”

In Thomas v. News Group Newspapers Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1233 Lord Phillips said, at [30]:

“The Act does not attempt to define the type of conduct that is capable of constituting harassment. ‘Harassment’ is, however, a word which has a meaning which is generally understood. It describes conduct targeted at an individual which is calculated to produce the consequences described in section 7 and which is oppressive and unreasonable. The practice of stalking is a prime example of such conduct.”

In Dowson & ors v The Chief Constable of Northumbria Police [2010] EWHC 2612 (QB), Simon J. helpfully summarised the requirements for a claim of individual harassment under s.1(1), at [42]:

“I turn then to a summary of what must be proved as a matter of law in order for the claim in harassment to succeed.

(1)

There must be conduct which occurs on at least two occasions,

“(2)

which is targeted at the claimant,

(3)

which is calculated in an objective sense to cause alarm or distress, and

(4)

which is objectively judged to be oppressive and unacceptable.

(5)

What is oppressive and unacceptable may depend on the social or working context in which the conduct occurs.

(6)

A line is to be drawn between conduct which is unattractive and unreasonable, and conduct which has been described in various ways: ‘torment’ of the victim, ‘of an order which would sustain criminal liability’.”

Simon J.’s formulation has to be slightly modified when considering a claim of group harassment under s.1(1A). In such a case, the harassment is likely to be targeted at individual members of a class of persons (e.g. company employees or suppliers) rather than at a sole individual. The defendant’s course of conduct must be intended to persuade either the victim of harassment or any other person (including a corporate entity) either (i) not to do something that he is entitled or required to do, or (ii) to do something that he is not under any obligation to do.

The First Claimant, Harlan Laboratories UK Limited, breeds animals for medical and clinical research. It supplies Huntingdon Life Sciences Ltd (“HLS”). HLS, and companies associated with HLS, have been the target of a sustained anti-vivisectionist campaign by organisations such as SHAC and NAVA, the First and Second Defendants, and individuals such as Mr Avery and Mr Steele (the representatives of the First and Second Defendants). Supporters of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) have also been heavily involved in anti-vivisection campaigns generally, not just against HLS. Although the ALF is not a named Defendant to this claim, it is part of the Claimants’ case that there are close links between SHAC, NAVA and the ALF, and that supporters of the ALF are active in the campaign against the Claimants.

The Claimants asked me to consider the evidence in this case in the context of the findings made in previous similar cases. Previous judgments in similar cases helpfully set out the factual background relating to anti-vivisection campaigns.

In University of Oxford & Ors v Broughton & Ors [2004] EWHC 2543 (QB), Grigson J. said:

“21.

There is a body of opinion which holds that the use of live animals in research is both immoral and unjustified. How large is the number of persons holding that opinion is a matter of conjecture. Those who hold those opinions want to stop research which involves experiments on live animals. They can be described as the Animal Rights Movement. This movement is entirely amorphous. It has no structure only a community of belief. There is no consensus as to the means by which the research involving live animals may be stopped. The Animal Rights Movement includes those who restrict their activities to that which is lawful and, at the other end of the spectrum, those who believe that they are morally justified in committing crime in order to achieve their aims. It includes organisations with a formal structure such as the R.S.P.C.A. and the League against Cruel Sports. Within this ‘broad church’ are groups whose activities are directed against specific targets, for example, SHAC. Whilst such groups may have founders and organisers, they have no formal membership. Their activities are advertised and those who support their aims are invited to participate. The activities are, as advertised, lawful although, on occasions, these advertised activities may be accompanied by actions which are either tortious (for example trespass) or which are deliberately criminal (for example assault or criminal damage.)

22.

The movement includes those who will adopt civil disobedience as a means of achieving their aims and those who will commit crime in order to do so, an example of which is the Animal Liberation Front. A person can easily be part of the Animal Liberation Front — a fact which will be kept secret for obvious reasons — but also participate in activities which are entirely lawful or which are deliberately tortious.”

In Smithkline Beecham PLC v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, Animal Liberation Front & Ors [2009] EWHC 1488 (QB), Jack J. said:

“6.

Huntingdon Life Sciences Limited, ‘HLS’, is a company which uses animals in the course of medical research. SHAC was set up in 1999 for the purpose of forcing it to close. In 2003 HLS obtained an interim order against SHAC and others to prevent the harassment of its employees and other protected persons defined in the order. Permanent orders were made on 19^th March 2007 by Holland J. following a trial.”

7.

Early in the campaign against HLS the campaign was widened to include companies and persons who were connected with HLS financially such as customers, suppliers and shareholders. GlaxoSmithKline were named. In addition to carrying out its own research using animals, GSK contracts with HLS for HLS to carry out such research.

8 The first incidents against GSK occurred in 2000. In general the campaign took two forms. One was the holding of protests or demonstrations at GSK's premises of varying legality. The other was cynically called ‘home visits’ to GSK employees. A schedule of incidents between March 2005 and March 2007 was put in evidence. Over 80 incidents are recorded. The majority are attributed to SHAC. Nine are attributed to ALF.

14 Witness statements describe the intimidating effect of aggressive demonstrations using megaphones to shout abuse at close quarters, the thrusting of placards at employees and the obstruction and photographing of vehicles.

Operation Achilles and the Winchester trial

17 On 1^st May 2007, as part of a police operation against leading animal rights activists named ‘Operation Achilles’, a series of raids were made in England, Amsterdam and Belgium. 32 people linked to animal rights extremism were arrested. The outcome in England was the preferment of two indictments, one against ten defendants and one against a further either six or seven. The ten faced a charge of conspiracy to blackmail, namely ‘to blackmail representatives of companies and businesses and other persons whom they suspected of being associated with [HLS] by making unwarranted demands, namely to cease trading lawfully with HLS, with menaces and intent to cause loss to another’. On 30^th July 2008 Greg Avery, Natasha Avery and Daniel Amos pleaded guilty. On 23^rd December 2008 four others were found guilty following trial. Sentences ranging from eleven to four years were passed. The trial involved an investigation of the activities of the leading persons associated with SHAC and who also acted from time to time in the name of the ALF. Citations were made to me from the closing speech on behalf of the prosecution, from the summing up of Butterfield J. and from his sentencing remarks. The second trial has not yet taken place.

The Animal Liberation Front

19 The Animal Liberation Front, the ALF, is dedicated to the furtherance of animal rights by direct action, which is a euphemism for illegal conduct. It is therefore necessarily secretive. On the other hand it needs publicity for its actions in order to further its cause because its major weapons are intimidation and fear. So public sources reveal a certain amount about it. It has been submitted to me that it is no more than a badge or calling card which is used by activists when they commit an illegal act. So when a home is sprayed with graffiti the action is claimed for the ALF. But, it is said, the ALF has no real existence other than as a concept. I am satisfied that it is more than that. The evidence in this trial establishes that it is a name adopted by a group of individuals who carry out illegal acts in purported furtherance of animal liberation. There are some who are at the centre and will from time to time take decisions as to actions to be taken and policy. Others will have an on-going involvement with those at the centre and in activities undertaken in the name of the ALF. Some will have a temporary involvement by carrying out an action undertaken in the name of the ALF. These are, of course, not distinct categories but shade into one another: they are used simply to provide a description of those who at any one time should be considered members of the ALF. There is naturally no formal membership nor any published membership criteria. Nor is there any formal constitution or structure.

SHAC

22.

I can deal more shortly with SHAC. It is accepted in the defences of Mr Avery and Dr Gastone that SHAC is an unincorporated association. ... In Mr Avery's defence it is denied SHAC has members; it is admitted that he has been a spokesperson for SHAC and has convictions relating to the SHAC campaign; it is denied that he is an appropriate representative defendant because the overwhelming majority of SHAC campaigners protest peacefully and within the law. It is asserted that SHAC's campaign has been lawful; that SHAC condemns unlawful protest; that SHAC has no links with the ALF; and that SHAC's spokespersons have condemned unlawful activity on many occasions. Dr Gastone's defence is in the same terms. But his defence was not conducted on that basis. In the opening written submissions served on his behalf it was accepted that the claimants had produced sufficient evidence to justify injunctions against persons properly appearing as defendants, though not against him. At the start of his oral closing Mr Rajeev Thacker accepted on Dr Gastone's behalf that appropriate claimants were entitled to judgment against SHAC if it was appropriately represented, and he asserted that there was no point in adding Dr Gastone as a second representative because SHAC could be represented in the action by Mr Avery.

23 In his unchallenged evidence Mr Trundley stated that SHAC had a website, contact details, a bank account for donations, and the use of properties, computers printing facilities and funds from street collections. Various SHAC documents refer to members. It was set up by Greg Avery, Natasha Avery and Heather Nicholson. They were responsible for the contents of its newsletters, and putting on its website information as to the names and locations of companies and persons to be targeted. I accept that it does not have a membership in a formal sense. The strong probability is that all those taking part in or contributing to its campaign are to be considered members. It is recorded in a judgment of Grigson J. in the Oxford case, [2004] EWHC 2543 , in which he extended the interim injunction until trial, that a joint declaration had been made by the three founders of SHAC that three other defendants had never been members of SHAC. That strongly suggests that there are others who are treated as members of SHAC.

24.

Lastly, it is as well to repeat that the ALF was founded long before SHAC, and that, in contrast with the general animal liberation objects of the ALF, SHAC's campaign is primarily against HLS and secondarily against all those who can be said to support HLS's continuation in business in some way. It follows that, although some of those who take action against GSK as members of the ALF will be members of SHAC, others will not be.

Greg Avery

26 Mr Avery was one of the founders of SHAC. His public stance has been that SHAC is not responsible for violence and does not condone it. His involvement in the forefront of the SHAC campaign is described in paragraph 99 of Mr Trundley's witness statement. In passing sentence in January 2009 Butterfield J. stated:

“You are lifelong, veteran, fanatical animal rights activists, as your previous convictions and your participation in this conspiracy demonstrates. I have little, if any, confidence in the assertions now made on your behalf that you do not propose to continue in this activity. Unless restrained in some way, I consider there is a high probability that you will, and that in doing so you will again cause the really serious psychological harm that you have already inflicted on so many.”

It was submitted to me on behalf of the claimants, and I accept, that the evidence in the Winchester trial makes it impossible to contend that SHAC is an entity whose operations stay within the law...”

In Novarits Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd & Ors v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC), Greg Avery & Ors [2009] EWHC 2716 (QB), Sweeney J. said:

“13 There have been a number of actions, brought by HLS [Huntingdon Life Sciences] and other companies, seeking to restrain the activities of the Defendants and others. An action brought by HLS itself was tried by Holland J in 2007 – see his judgment at [2007] EWHC 522 (QB). An injunction was granted against both SHAC and other protestors (as then defined in that injunction).

14 In BayerCropScience Limited v SHAC and others (the same Defendants as in this action), Treacy J granted an interim injunction on 23^rd April 2008 – see [2008] EWHC 1069 (QB). Treacy J concluded, amongst other things, that:-

i)

The evidence before him, including materials about Novartis downloaded from the SHAC website, showed that SHAC was part of a campaign against HLS and others.

ii)

An article by one Kevin Jonas, an American member of SHAC, entitled ‘Bricks and Bullhorns' and another article downloaded from the SHAC website, showed that SHAC's activities were linked closely to those of the Animal Liberation Front (‘ALF’) and others, in an attempt to bring down HLS by legal and illegal means.

iii)

There was also a link between SHAC and a website called Bite Back which advocated and reported illegal actions, in particular by the ALF, in connection with the pursuit of animal rights, which SHAC adopted and condoned.

...

15 In passing sentence on the Second, Third and Fourth Defendants, and others, in January 2009 at the Winchester Crown Court, Butterfield J said, amongst other things, as follows:-

“…Each of you is passionately opposed to the use of animals in research laboratories. I accept that for each of you the principal motivation for your blackmail was not financial or other personal gain, but stemmed from your genuinely held concerns about cruelty to animals. You have every right to hold those views, every right to express them and every right to protest against the law that requires medicines to be tested on animals.

Freedom of expression and the right to lawful protest are important rights. But so is the right to conduct vital biomedical research in ways not really permitted but required by our law, and so is the right of business to carry on lawful trading with companies carrying out that research.

You, Greg and Natasha Avery and Heather Nicholson, decided that lawful protest, reasoned argument and the use of political pressure was not going to achieve your clear ambition to close down Huntingdon Life Sciences. And so you embarked on a campaign of terror, persecuting and harassing the employees of any company whom you even suspected of having links with Huntingdon Life Sciences so that, you hoped, they would cease trading with the laboratory thereby ultimately bringing down Huntingdon Life Sciences.

You cloaked your activities with what, in my judgment, was a hypocritical sham pretence that SHAC, the organisation you three set up, was a vehicle for legitimate lawful protest in an area of public concern. It was nothing of the sort. It was a vehicle used to terrorise ordinary, decent traders carrying on perfectly lawful businesses.

You developed a highly organised, well researched and meticulously executed plan of attack. You used deception to find out which companies were actually connected with Huntingdon Life Sciences as its clients, its suppliers or contractors working for them. Once you discovered or even suspected that a company or business was connected with the laboratory, the company would be contacted, the work of HLS explained to them and they would be invited to stop trading with the laboratory.

If they agreed, and many did for fear of what might happen if they did not capitulate, that was that. If not, the name, address and other contact details of the company were published on the SHAC website.

In addition, you ascertained the home addresses and other personal details of senior employees of the companies. How you achieved that has not been for the most part revealed by the evidence, but your intelligence, the fruits of the research carried out by you or on your behalf, gave you information about ex-directory telephone numbers, the names of the wives and even the children of some of the employees, the days on which their bins were emptied and the extent of any security measures in place at their homes.

The consequence of publication of the company details on the website was that the company and its employees became the target of criminal activity. You used all the tactics and more. Tactics described in detail in the urban terrorists' handbook, the so called ABIX 4 document.

You, or those working under your direction and control, embarked upon a ruthless, sustained campaign designed to strike such fear into the minds of the employees that the companies would ultimately capitulate in the face of your intimidation.

The criminal activity included making false allegations of paedophilia, which were circulated to neighbours of the employee, and sending hoax bombs to the business premises or home addresses of an employee; hoax bombs which were extremely realistic and which resulted in the bomb squad having to attend to deal with the packages.

The activity also included the sending of sanitary towels allegedly contaminated with the AIDS virus, demonstrations and damage at the homes of members of staff, threats or actual criminal damage to property, threat of physical assault, threatening and abusive telephone calls, emails and letters, repeated silent calls often in the middle of the night, delivery of unwanted material from mail order companies and the co-ordinated sending of emails or telephone calls so as to block the company's systems.

Then there were the demonstrations outside company premises and disruptive trespasses into company premises. Video footage of those demonstrations were taken by demonstrators and I have seen a number of them. There is little if any attempt to explain the cause SHAC promoted. The demonstrations were designed quite simply to create a climate of fear at the company.

There were often violent and abusive words shouted through megaphones at staff. The video cameras were pointed at staff and at the registration numbers of their parked cars in order to suggest that their homes would be identified for future violence there. There were threats to get the staff, to target them personally, even to kill them; many of the staff being women who were plainly very frightened at what was happening.

…The effect of this relentless, sustained, merciless and ruthless persecution was as serious as it was inevitable. There was evidence before the jury of the targeting of employees of no less than 40 separate companies over a six year period.

Many of the employees of those companies were deeply affected by what you organised. When a hoax bomb is sent to a company and the premises are evacuated and the bomb squad attends, it is not just the senior management who are affected, it is all the staff. There was evidence that in at least one company counselling had to be arranged for some of the staff, so disturbed were they by what had happened.

The climate of fear…would permeate a whole organisation just as you intended: when are they coming back; what will it be next time? And so much worse for the individuals who were targeted at home.

.....

In my judgment, your conduct during demonstrations outside victim company premises and your incitement, organisation and encouragement of criminal activity at every opportunity, including on the SHAC website, makes it abundantly clear that such an order is essential.”

The conclusion which I draw from these judgments is that at least some animal rights activists associated with SHAC and ALF are such vehement opponents of vivisection that they will resort to unlawful acts, both criminal and tortious, to intimidate organisations and individuals whom they believe to be linked to vivisection.

The courts have repeatedly rejected, on the evidence before them, the plea made by SHAC that its activists only operate within the law. In the criminal trial of the founders of SHAC in 2009, Butterfield J found that they “cloaked [their] activities with what, in my judgment, was a hypocritical sham pretence that SHAC … was a vehicle for legitimate lawful protest in an area of public concern. It was nothing of the sort. It was a vehicle used to terrorise ordinary, decent traders carrying on perfectly lawful businesses.”

Greg Avery who is the named representative for SHAC in these proceedings was one of the defendants sentenced by Butterfield J in 2009 for conducting through SHAC “a campaign of terror, persecuting and harassing the employees of any company whom you even suspected of having links with Huntingdon Life Sciences so that, you hoped, they would cease trading with the laboratory thereby ultimately bringing down Huntingdon Life Sciences.” The First Claimant has been targeted because it breeds animals for laboratories including HLS.

In his third witness statement, Mr Wasky describes the links between SHAC, the ALF and NAVA, the Second Defendant. NAVA and SHAC “largely share the same goals, tactics and techniques”. The representative of the Second Defendant, Luke Steele, who has described himself in the past as Chairperson and/or spokesperson for NAVA, was formerly a member of the co-ordinating committee of SHAC, and there is evidence of his contact with Greg Avery. Mr Wasky provides evidence identifying other NAVA activists who are also supporters and/or members of SHAC.

The websites of SHAC and NAVA report the same demonstrations and campaigns, and Mr Wasky’s evidence shows that activists from both organisations take part in them together. The role of Jonathan White is particularly significant. Jonathan White appears on the SHAC website in photographs of SHAC protests, displaying SHAC banners, and he is believed to have a co-ordinating role in SHAC West Midlands. He has been photographed on protests at the First Claimant’s premises with Luke Steele. He was arrested with Luke Steele at the First Claimant’s premises at Hillcrest on 26^th April 2011, and both men were convicted. The joint criminal action with Luke Steele is evidence of a joint action between SHAC and NAVA.

The links between SHAC and NAVA, together with Luke Steele’s criminal convictions for activities against the First Claimant, are evidence that at least some activists associated with NAVA are prepared to resort to criminal and tortious acts to further their objectives.

As the judgment of Jack J. in the Smithkline case describes, the ALF is a loose affiliation of activists committed to the use of illegal direct action. Because of its illegal activities, it is necessarily secretive. However, there is photographic evidence which shows a number of protestors at the First Claimant’s premises supporting the ALF by wearing ALF T-shirts and tops, and carrying ALF placards. This signifies their support for the unlawful methods advocated by the ALF to achieve the desired objective. It is also highly intimidating to those associated with the Claimants because of the ALF’s reputation for violent direct action. Many of these protestors wearing ALF insignia have been identified. They include Rebecca Hill and Jacob Rose, who have made witness statement on behalf of NAVA in these proceedings, and Jonathan White, member of SHAC and a co-defendant of Luke Steele. I saw video footage of Jonathan White wearing ALF insignia protesting with Luke Steele outside the First Claimant’s premises.

Other examples of evidence linking these protests with the ALF are:

When Luke Steele was in prison, he was supported by the Animal Liberation Front Supporters Group.

The protest at the First Claimant’s premises organised by NAVA on 27^th August 2011 was reported on the ALF website.

An announcement on the internet magazine Bite Back, downloaded on 12^th July 2011, read “...from the small breeders to the likes of Harlan - the ALF are watching and we will close you down. We will smash the breeders...”

On 11^th July 2011, a handwritten letter was sent to Harlan Wyton, Cambridgeshire which read:

“From Animal liberation Front. Find all the dogs a new home within one month. And do no more experiments on animal. We will give you one month. From (th)is letter. We will blow you up.”

The Claimants describe this as blackmail.

ALF activists committed criminal damage against Sunlight’s premises in Leeds and Coventry on 25^th and 26^th January 2012 because it supplies Harlan. Sunlight was one of the companies identified by NAVA in its list of Harlan suppliers dated 24^th January 2012.

After Monock Freight had been listed as a Harlan supplier by SHAC, ALF activists committed criminal damage at the homes of directors of Monock Freight, which acts as a courier between Harlan and HLS. They threatened them and their families and colleagues with further violence.

In my judgment, Mr Wasky is probably correct when he says that NAVA, SHAC and the ALF share a considerable number of members and that individuals hold themselves out as being members of each of these groups when the circumstances suit them. Although NAVA and SHAC disassociate themselves from the ALF, there is a “strategic combination of seemingly lawful and covertly unlawful and criminal behaviour....The unlawful and criminal behaviour is conducted in the name of the ALF”.

The Claimants submit, and I accept, that it is reasonable to infer that Luke Steele had incriminating material on his computer in relation to his activities and his contact with other activists, since he refused to disclose the encryption key to his computer on request. The fact that he was willing to be prosecuted, convicted and sentenced under section 53 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 rather than hand over his encryption key indicates how strongly he wished to hide this material from the police.

In a Schedule to this judgment, I have summarised many of the incidents relied upon by the Claimants as evidence of harassment by the Defendants. The Claimants also adduced evidence of harassment against the employees of Harlan subsidiaries outside the UK.

CPR Rule 24.2 provides that the court may give summary judgment in respect of the whole claim or a particular issue in the claim if:

it considers that the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim or issue, and

there is no other compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at a trial.

In order to defeat an application for summary judgment, it is sufficient for the defendant to show some “prospect” (i.e. some chance) of success. That prospect must be “real” i.e. not false or fanciful. The proper disposal of an application does not involve the court conducting a mini-trial – if there are issues to be investigated, a full trial should be ordered (per Lord Woolf MR in Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91, approved by Lord Hope in Three Rivers DC v. Bank of England (No. 3) [2003] 2 AC 1, who added, at [95], “it is designed to deal with cases that are not fit for trial at all”.

The limitation period under the PHA 1997 is 6 years from the date of issue of the claim which was 15^th July 2011 (by s.11(1A) Limitation Act 1980 the 3 year time limit for personal injuries does not apply). At the hearing, the Claimants also sought to rely on events occurring after the date of issue of the claim. I allowed them to do so, on the basis that this was plainly relevant to the issue of whether a permanent injunction should be granted.

I am satisfied, on the evidence, that the Defendants have no real prospect of defending this claim. In the summary of evidence in the Schedule, there is overwhelming evidence of a course of conduct against individuals working for or visiting the various premises of Harlan Laboratories UK Ltd which amounts to harassment, within the meaning of s.1 PHA 1997. By their words and actions, members and associates of SHAC, NAVA and persons unknown have repeatedly caused alarm, distress, fear and intimidation to their targets.

I have watched video evidence of the protests at Harlan’s UK premises and I am satisfied that the conduct of the protestors is oppressive and has gone far beyond legitimate peaceful protest. For example:

Those entering and leaving the premises have been subjected to verbal abuse and threats both shouted and through loudhailers.

Groups of protestors block vehicles (including private cars) from passing, and then surround the vehicles in an intimidating manner, shouting abuse, hitting the vehicles, and placing offensive placards and banners over windscreens and windows.

The masks and ALF insignia adopted by the protestors add to the fear and intimidation felt by the victims.

The practice of photographing employees and their vehicles, and recording registration details, is frightening and intimidating in the light of the history of harassment at private homes by animal rights activists (see Butterfield J.’s sentencing remarks above).

Breaking in and trespassing at Harlan premises, when they are staffed.

Deliberate noise nuisance, with loudspeakers and air horns, intended to disturb those inside the premises, day and night.

At Harlan Wyton, protestors have been running into the path of cars moving at speed along a busy road, causing the driver to swerve into the path of oncoming traffic to avoid them. This is both frightening and dangerous for the drivers and their passengers.

Luke Steele, activist in NAVA, and Jonathan White, activist in SHAC, were arrested in a protest at the First Claimant’s Hillcrest site in April 2011. Luke Steele was convicted of interfering with contractual relationships so as to harm animal research organisations and both he and Jonathan Steele were convicted of intimidating persons connected with animal research organisations, contrary to sections 145 and 146 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Both men were found to have acted in an anti-social manner causing harassment, alarm and distress, and were sentenced to ASBOs restricting their contact with protected companies, including the First Claimant.

The effect of these activities was described in an article in the Observer newspaper, entitled 29^th July 2012, about Harlan’s Blackthorn site:

“Inside the lab where animal testing staff live in fear. Science editor Robert McKie gains rare access to the beleaguered lab where rats and mice are bred for essential medical research….The twin gates topped with razor wire and spikes, would do justice to a prison…One female Harlan worker told the Observer: “When you arrived in the morning you would have to queue for up to five minutes to get through the gates. Their loudhailers were deafening. They would scream at you that you were a puppy killer and would bang on your car. It was horrible, I was left shaking for hours afterwards. A male colleague was equally affected: “It is part of their methodology to equate animal work with paedophilia. If they find out your name, you will appear on their website as a paedophile… Another Harlan worker found out that his neighbours had all been sent notes claiming that he was a rapist.”

Threats of violence have also been made against the First Claimant and those who work for it:

On 11^th July 2011, a handwritten letter was sent to Harlan Wyton, Cambridgeshire which read:

“From Animal liberation Front. Find all the dogs a new home within one month. And do no more experiments on animal. We will give you one month. From (th)is letter. We will blow you up.”

The Claimants rightly describe this as blackmail.

An announcement on the internet magazine Bite Back, downloaded on 12^th July 2011, read “...from the small breeders to the likes of Harlan - the ALF are watching and we will close you down. We will smash the breeders...”

There is ample evidence from the representations of the protestors and the internet and media coverage of SHAC and NAVA that the purpose of this harassment is to put pressure on the First Claimant, and those associated with the First Claimant, to cease the lawful breeding and supply of animals to HLS and other laboratories.

I am also satisfied from the summary of evidence that there is evidence of a course of conduct against the employees of third party suppliers and providers of Harlan Laboratories UK Ltd which amounts to harassment, within the meaning of s.1 PHA 1997. I accept that, on the evidence before me, much of the vigorous campaigning to persuade third parties to terminate their contracts with the First Claimant has been lawful, e.g. petitions, letters, peaceful demonstrations. However, I am also satisfied that, by their words and actions, members and associates of SHAC, NAVA and persons unknown have harassed the employees of some third parties, causing alarm, distress, fear and intimidation. The purpose of this harassment has been to put pressure on them and their employers to cease their lawful working relations with the First Claimant.

It is significant that these activities have taken place even after 5^th October 2011, when Singh J. granted an interim injunction in these proceedings restraining the Defendants from harassment and other unlawful action against the employees and shareholders of the First Claimant’s third party suppliers and providers.

The campaign against Stericycle.

Stericycle (“SRCL”) is a clinical and specialist waste management company which provides services to the First Claimant.

3^rd November 2011. NAVA announced demonstrations at SRCL headquarters in Leeds, to take place on 8^th November 2011. Luke Steele was named as chair and contact for NAVA in a NAVA press release.

4^th November 2011: The Claimants’ solicitors wrote to NAVA and Luke Steele informing them that SRCL was a service provider to Harlan and that the Order dated 5^th October 2011 applied.

14^th November 2011: the NAVA website stated that campaigners chained themselves together in a successful attempt to shut down the SRCL site in Leeds. Four activists, held out as members of NAVA, were arrested in connection with this action. The facebook page, seemingly in the name of NAVA, stated:

“it is impressive that activists are prepared to defy the Harlan injunction which covers its suppliers, and get themselves arrested… Let’s hope that others realise that … injunctions are not going to stop us.”

24^th January 2012 – The address and contact details for SRCL were listed on the NAVA website as a company associated with the First Claimant, together with a threatening message:

“There are few companies who are willing to be associated with Harlan and here we bring you the hardcore. These are the ones keeping the kennels open and the beagles living in squalor. All of them have been informed about the staff punching and kicking dogs, but do not care – some even laughed when we told them. Make calls, send email, carry out demos and dismantle the vivisection breeders brick by brick. The beagles have nobody but you.”

“SRCL enter Harlan in unmarked vans to collect the remains of beagles killed due to unprofitability. They take them by the skipful to their Leeds plant for incineration. What a sick company SRCL are.”

5^th & 26^th January 2012: - criminal damage and trespass took place at SRCL premises:

“SRCL are a vital supplier to Harlan ... In the dead of night we climbed over the fences at the Head Office in Leeds. Walls were spray painted with slogans against Harlan and vivisection. Locks on the building were superglued shut and damage also done to the bike shed… For every bloodsoaked penny you make from this contract we will double it in costs” (Bite Back magazine online, which publishes messages on behalf of the ALF)

The campaign against Sunlight Service Group

Sunlight Service Group provides laundry services to the First Claimant.

24^th January 2012 – The address and contact details for Sunlight Service Group were listed on the NAVA website as a company associated with the First Claimant, together with a threatening message:

“There are few companies who are willing to be associated with Harlan and here we bring you the hardcore. These are the ones keeping the kennels open and the beagles living in squalor. All of them have been informed about the staff punching and kicking dogs, but do not care – some even laughed when we told them. Make calls, send email, carry out demos and dismantle the vivisection breeders brick by brick. The beagles have nobody but you.” (NAVA website).

“Sunlight enter Harlan Interfauna on a regular basis. They collect the blood and faeces soiled overalls of employees and take them away for cleaning. Employees within Sunlight tell us that nobody wants to touch Harlan’s washing as the animal hairs are so difficult to get out.

The list also included Ryder plc on the basis of its contract with Sunlight, stating:

“The company hold a contract with Sunlight, renting vans to the company that collect dirty laundry from Harlan. They claim they cannot control what their vans are used for – yeah right!”

25^th & 26^th January 2012 – the ALF committed criminal damage at Sunlight’s premises in Leeds and Coventry because of its connection with Harlan.

“We visited Sunlight in Leeds because they provide laundry facilities to Harlan. Locks were filled with glue and we spray painted slogans on their walls. When the Harlan dogs are left without justice we make it our mission to bring justice. Harlan will be torn down. ALF” (Bite Back magazine)

“Sunlight in Coventry was our focus. This company deals with Harlan so also deal with the ALF. The depot walls were painted with slogans against these puppy killers. Animal Liberation Front.” (Bite Back magazine)

The campaign against Monock Freight

Monock Freight is a specialist freight delivery company which carries out deliveries from the First Claimant to HLS, among other destinations.

The name and address of Monock Freight was listed on the SHAC website as a “SHAC UK Action Targets”. It was described on the website as “another specialist freight company. They transport everything from primates to blood samples across the globe for HLS”.

In February 2012, activists associated with the ALF carried out attacks at the homes of two employees of Monock Freight, and posted threatening messages in the online magazine Bite Back. The threats extended to their families. The names and home addresses of the victims were posted in full, thus potentially exposing them to further risk. I have anonymised them for the purposes of this judgment:

“On the night of 12^th February we struck against PDP Couriers and Monock Freight. Both companies ferry documents, goods and animals to Huntingdon Life Sciences. First we went to the home of [x].This scumbag is a driver for PDP. We ruined his precious car and spray painted his house. Next we paid a visit to [y] and gave him the same treatment. Remember anyone who works to keep HLS open will be tracked down and dealt with accordingly…” (Bite Back magazine)

“Last night (21^st February) volunteers from the Animal Liberation Front attacked the home of Monock Freight Director, [y]…. While you and your wife [m] slept in your beds we were stripping the paint from your car and emptying a can of spray paint over the vehicle and your house. Is it still a good idea to deal with Huntingdon Life Sciences [y]?Your company has been involved in lab animal transport for some time now and we think that it’s only fair that you receive the same attention as every other HLS dealing animal abusing scumbag on this planet. So let the message ring out in your ears like the sound of a big, loud explosion. You will not get away with dealing with HLS. If you were angry when you woke up…and saw your nice car, ruined. Let us tell you, this action is really rather tame compared to what we have planned for you, your family, your colleagues, your colleagues families etc etc unless Monock Freight severs all links with HLS. The choice is yours…carry on as you are and feel the full force of our guerrilla army, or drop HLS and have peace. We have nothing to lose, so…the choice is yours…until next time…sleep well...Animal Liberation Front” (Bite Back magazine)

“Monock Freight are complete and utter scum…[z] Director Monock Freight…got a fraction of what he deserves when the ALF visited his home and paint-strippered his vehicles. We are on to you and your colleagues in animal abuse…Like the trains of death that took the Jews to the camps, you deliver helpless animals through the gates of Hell at HLS...For those that have died because of you [z] remember their deaths are your fault. You are to blame, [z] – ALF” (Bite Back magazine)

These activities should be viewed in the context of a history of activists associated with SHAC and the ALF harassing and intimidating individuals who are employed by companies associated with vivisection. As Butterfield J. said when sentencing Greg Avery and the other founder members of SHAC:

“You, or those working under your direction and control, embarked upon a ruthless, sustained campaign designed to strike such fear into the minds of the employees that the companies would ultimately capitulate in the face of your intimidation.”

In my judgment, on the basis of the evidence summarised above, the Claimants are entitled to summary judgment on their claim against the Defendants.

It is well established that, in a case such as this, an injunction may properly be granted pursuant to section 3(3) of the PHA 1997 Act for the purpose of restraining a defendant from an actual or apprehended breach of section 1(1). Section 3(A) of the Act, provides a further right to apply for an injunction where there is an actual or apprehended breach by any person of the terms of section 1(1)(a) of the Act.

By virtue of section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the High Court has power to grant an interim or permanent injunction “in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just and convenient to do so”. A permanent injunction should not be granted where damages are an adequate remedy. Under s.3A PHA 1997, the only remedy available is an injunction, and therefore the First Claimant has no entitlement to damages. Although individual victims of harassment could bring a claim for damages, I am satisfied that this would not be an adequate remedy because it would not protect them from ongoing harassment.

The campaign against Harlan (and companies associated with it) shows no sign of abating. The schedule of evidence lists numerous protests in the last twelve months; some lawful, others not. The issue of these proceedings, including the grant of interim injunctions, have not acted as a deterrent to harassment of individuals either working for or associated with the First Claimant.

The Schedule of evidence shows that, at the First Claimant’s premises, protestors have breached the terms of the injunctions by demonstrating in the exclusion zone and not remaining in the Designated Protest Area or Leafleting Zone. Also, in breach of the injunctions, photographing of employees has continued; loudhailers have been used; and protestors have worn face coverings. Most worryingly of all, employees and visitors entering and leaving the site have been obstructed; subjected to verbal abuse; and their cars have been hit. The episodes of harassment suffered by employees of third parties associated with Harlan all occurred in the last year.

The lack of respect for the law is evidenced by:

the convictions of activists from SHAC and NAVA, as recently as July 2012;

the ritual spitting on the injunction notice posted outside Harlan premises;

the facebook message, seemingly from NAVA, in response to the First Claimant’s warning not to breach the injunction by harassing SRCL employees:

“it is impressive that activists are prepared to defy the Harlan injunction which covers its suppliers, and get themselves arrested… Let’s hope that others realise that … injunctions are not going to stop us.”

The proposed permanent injunction is in almost identical terms to the interim injunctions granted earlier in these proceedings. There were some inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the description of the categories of persons included in the list of Protected Persons which have been rectified. More accurate maps have been provided.

The injunction affects the exercise of rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, namely, the right to freedom of expression under article 10 and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, under article 11. Any restriction on those rights must be in pursuit of a legitimate aim, which in this case is the prevention of disorder or crime and the protection of the rights of others. It must also be “necessary in a democratic society” which means that it must fulfil “a pressing social need” and be proportionate to the legitimate aim relied upon. Section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 applies, and so the court must have particular regard to the importance of freedom of expression (see Cream Holdings v Bannerjee [2005] 1 AC 971).

In considering proportionality, I have to balance the protestors’ rights under Articles 10 and 11 against the rights and freedoms of those who are the target of the protests. By virtue of Article 8, the State is under a positive obligation to protect the right of individuals to respect for their private and home life. The right to private life protects the moral and physical integrity of the individual, incorporating the right to live privately, away from unwanted attention (Niemietz v Germany (1992) 16 EHRR 97; X & Y v Netherlands (1986) 8 EHRR 235). In my judgment, intrusive interference with an employee’s journey to and from work (including photographing and recording of car registrations for the purpose of targeting such individuals in future protests) will potentially breach Article 8.

In Connolly v DPP [2008] 1 WLR EWHC 276 (Admin), where the court rejected the defendant’s submission that her conviction for sending distressing anti-abortion pictures to pharmacy, employees contrary to the Malicious Communications Act 1988, was a breach of Articles 9 and 10 ECHR, Dyson L.J. (as he then was) said at [28]:

“the persons who worked in the three pharmacies which were targeted by Mrs Connolly had the right not to have sent to them material of the kind that she sent when it was her purpose, or one of her purposes, to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient. Just as members of the public have the right to be protected from such material (sent for such a purpose) in the privacy of their homes, so too, in general terms, do people in the workplace. But it must depend on the circumstances. The more offensive the material, the greater the likelihood that such persons have the right to be protected from receiving it. Much is likely to turn on the position of the recipient.”

Human rights cannot be used as a charter for law-breaking and so the protestors are not entitled to commit the tort of harassment or to commit criminal acts in the course of exercising their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. As Grigon J. said in University of Oxford & Ors v Broughton & Ors [2004] EWHC 2543 (QB):

23.

Lawful activities of the Animal Rights Movement include public protest and dissemination of information. Tortious activities include trespass. Criminal acts include assault, criminal damage, theft, burglary and harassment.

24.

Research involving the use of live animals done in conformity with the Animal (Scientific) Procedures Act 1986 is lawful. Those who conduct such research or who, in the broadest sense, provide the facilities for such research are acting lawfully and are entitled to go about their lawful business. If citizens use unlawful means to prevent them doing so, or promote the use of such means, then those involved in lawful activity are entitled to such protection as the Courts can provide to enable them to pursue their lawful activities. See judgement of Stuart Smith LJ in Monsanto Plc v. Tilly [2000] ENV. LR. 313:

“Those views were genuinely and sincerely held and there was nothing whatever unlawful in trying to persuade others and particularly the Government of the rightness of their views provided they did not employ unlawful means to do so, and provided they did not incite others to use unlawful means, such that they were liable in tort to the Claimant ….

In a democratic society, the object of change in Government policy had to be effected by lawful and not unlawful means. Those who suffered infringement of their lawful rights were entitled to the protection of the law. If others deliberately infringed those rights in order to attract publicity to their cause, however sincerely they believed in its correctness, they had to bear the consequences of their law breaking. That was fundamental to the rule of law in a civilised and democratic society””

In my judgment, the proposed restrictions on demonstrations at, or in the vicinity of, the First Claimant’s premises are proportionate to the legitimate aim of preventing crime and disorder and protecting the rights of employees and visitors to the premises. The order allows protests opposite the premises, in the Designated Protest Area, and it allows protestors to offer leaflets to those entering or leaving the premises. This enables the protest to be seen and heard by those entering or leaving the premises, but it prevents protestors blocking a car’s path, while shouting at the occupant, and banging on the car, which has been intimidating. The conditions placed on the demonstrations are reasonable: noise nuisance is controlled; photographing is banned as are balaclavas and masks; and numbers are limited to 25. In the video footage I saw, there were only a handful of protestors at any one time, and so the cap on numbers is not unduly restrictive. By limiting the demonstrations to once a week, for 3 hours, a balance is achieved between the protestors’ right to protest and those who wish to travel to and from work without being subjected to a daily ordeal.

Protestors are required to give 24 hours notice to the Claimants and the police of the proposed demonstration. The police do not have the resources to police these sites on a regular basis; often the only security presence is the Harlan guard inside the gate.

Once every 12 months, at a weekend or public holiday, a larger demonstration of up to 100 protestors can take place on the highway, in the exclusions zones, provided advance notice is given to the police and the highway authority.

Protestors are prevented from protesting in the exclusion zones which comprise significant areas of open land around each site, as well as the adjacent highway. This is a proportionate means of controlling demonstrations and also preventing illegal raids – trespass, burglary and criminal damage has taken place on a number of occasions, as evidenced in the Schedule. The sites are in remote locations.

At Harlan Wyton, the order extends the exclusion zone to include an area abutting the road leading from the premises down to the roundabout. A very dangerous situation has arisen where protestors wait at the side of the road for vehicles which have existed the Harlan site, and then run into the road in front of the vehicles, waving placards and shouting. The road is busy at peak times, and I have seen video footage of cars swerving into the path of oncoming traffic in an attempt to avoid running down the protestors who are in the middle of the road. It can only be a matter of time before someone is seriously injured. In my view the protestors have behaved irresponsibly and abused the opportunity to mount a lawful protest from the verge, without going into the highway, which is part of the exclusion zone. I consider it is now essential to extend the exclusion zone to prevent protestors congregating in that area.

I had some concern about the proportionality of clause 7.5.2 which prevented a protestor “knowingly picketing, demonstrating, loitering or conducting any other protesting activity within 100 metres of any business premises occupied by the employees of any of the Claimants suppliers or service providers”. Five such suppliers or service providers have asked to be named – Cockburn Veterinary Group, Repton Security Limited, Monock Freight Limited, Impex Services International Limited and Air France/KLM. There is clear evidence of targeting employees and premises of the First Claimant’s suppliers and service providers, and so some restriction is proportionate to avoid harassment of people entering and leaving their place of work. However, to achieve a more proportionate balance, I consider that the ban should only extend to a distance of 50 metres from the premises, and the reference to “loitering” should be removed.

I did not accept Ms Vincent’s objection to the naming of Air France/KLM. It does not widen the scope of the order, as she suggested, since all the Claimants suppliers or service providers are already included, whether or not they are specifically named. Indeed, I consider it preferable that they should be named, to avoid possible mistakes, although it is understandable that some companies prefer not to be named, for fear of attracting unwelcome attention.

Moreover there is ample evidence that Air France/KLM are a target. Air France/KLM is named as a target on SHAC and NAVA websites as one of the few airlines that will transport animals for research purposes. Protests have included criminal damage both in the Netherlands and the UK. An article in the Sunday Telegraph newspaper on 18^th March 2012 stated:

“A campaign which led ferry companies to stop importing animals for medical research was master-minded by a single animal rights militant backed by just a handful of supports…

The firms were so nervous that 22 year old [Luke] Steele and his acolytes would unleash more extreme tactics against them, they gave into the demands – partly because of his past involvement in a string of militant protests. Just a handful of airlines now transport research animals into Britain after Stena Line joined P & O Ferries and DFDS Seaways in halting the importation of…animals for laboratories….

Mr Steele and his comrades at… NAVA, which he launched in May 2010, now plan to intensify their campaign against airlines still willing to transport animals for medical research – chief among them Air France.”

Finally, in assessing proportionality, I have taken into account the important point that protestors are at liberty to organise rallies and other protests at locations away from Harlan premises, which they have indeed done. They also can and do communicate their message very effectively to a much wider audience via the internet and the press.

Therefore, for the reasons set out above, I grant a permanent injunction in the terms set out in the order of the Court.

Article on SHAC website, “Who we are”

“The SHAC campaign has used a wide variety of tactics against HLS and all the companies supporting them with devastating success. HLS has seen one company after another desert them rather than be associated with the animal killers once their involvement with them has been highlighted.”

26^th March 2000 - Harlan, East Sussex

“…a darling daylight raid took place at Harlan UK…all of the breeding records were taken. These indicated that one of their biggest customers is HLS.” (SHAC newsletter 16)

March 2002 - Harlan Cambridgeshire

“SHAC activist climbed over the razor wire of HLS’ beagle supplier in Cambridgeshire...Myself and a few other protestors arrived at Harlan Interfauna (one of HLS’s beagle suppliers)...climbed up over the razor wire and I was in the compound…main body of demonstrators had arrived and it was a real inspiration to see so many people ...trying to get into the compound with me.” (SHAC website and SHAC newsletter 17)

22^nd April 2003 – Harlan, Blackthorn

“…Nothing puts as much of a spring into your step as dealing out justice to animal abusers...Our next destination - Harlan Interfauna...Interfauna acts as a breeder for Huntingdon and is one of the most vile companies in business in the UK today.…We gave hell to their captors and left with a renewed sense of purpose…” (SHAC website, “Demo at HLS customer TEVA”)

22^nd April 2003 – Harlan

“…People who carry out raids like these are bloody heroes…” (SHAC website, “Pictures from the Harlan Raid”)

May 2003

“A Message to all HLS Customers. [SHAC] campaigns ruthlessly and effectively against any company and individual that has links to HLS. Their advice to HLS customers...is to sever all links with HLS…Until that day, any company SHAC targets will receive office occupations, roof top demos, lock-on actions, pickets of workers, gate blockades, phone blockades, fax blockades, email blockades, leafleting and poster campaigns as well as demos outside the homes of their directors and employees. Pharmaceutical firm Yamanouchi thought they could ignore them and they soon had protestors on their rooftops, protestors rampaging around inside their offices, protestors gaining access to their sites and banging on the windows, protestors outside the homes of their directors, phone blockages involving 400+ calls per day, fax blockades and they have even had protestors from the UK travelling to other countries and storming in to their offices and going through confidential paperwork/ computer systems.” (SHAC website)

19^th November 2004 – Harlan Hillcrest

“Harlan UK received a surprise visit from the relentless SHAC East Midlands...With placards and drums...Employees were forced to leave six at a time...this gave activists plenty of time to show employees horrific pictures...SHAC East Midlands look forward to another surprise demonstration soon at Harlan...” (SHAC website, “SHAC East Midlands visit HLS dog breeders”)

24^th March 2005 – Harlan, Loughborough

“...Megaphones, whistles and drums echoed within the confines of the site...let Harlan know what you think of their filthy business!” Contact details of Harlan, Loughborough included. (SHAC website, “Harlan Sera-Lab Limited – supplier to HLS”)

29^th May 2005 – Harlan, Blackthorn

“...Had a good look around the back of the site...then we went to the front entrance and just stood there quietly... this obviously freaked them out...Nearby houses were all leafleted...” (SHAC website, “Real World Day May 27th Team 2”)

6^th April 2007 – Harlan, Bicester

“...with megaphones and our voices we caught all the workers...Evil does not even begin to describe you Harlan…” Contact details of Harlan, Blackthorn supplied in article.” (SHAC website, “South East day of action against Huntingdon’s customers and suppliers”)

30^th April 2008 – Harlan, Cambridgeshire

“...We took with us megaphones, drums and banners and used them to good effect... the noisy protest lasted most of the day... You’re a disgusting company Harlan and we’ll name and shame you across the world…” (SHAC website, “Protest at Harlan Interfauna Beagle Supplier”)

9^th September 2008 – Harlan, Leicestershire

“...we thought we would catch them by surprise so we turned up at their gates at roughly 3:30am the security were very shocked to see us...we used megaphones to inform the security guards just what happens... we will return soon and it could be at any time of the day or night...” (SHAC website, “Any time, anywhere demos, who’s next?”)

6^th October 2010 – Harlan, Loughborough

“...we shouted, chanted on megaphones and let off air horns...” (SHAC website, “More demos against Harlan and Safepharm”)

30^th October 2008 - Harlan, Loughborough

“...thanks for opening the gates you idiots...the security willingly opened up the first gate...leaving the car half in, half out so they couldn’t close the gate...we ran in shouting at security and shaming the company...we will be back soon...” (SHAC website, “Helpful Harlan security”)

31^st October 2008 - Harlan, Cambridgeshire

“...we arrived early at Harlan with our megaphones and a nice new air horn, with explosion of sound...” SHAC website, “Scary science UK tour day 5 finishing at HLS”)

31^st October 2008 - Harlan, Cambridgeshire

“...security didn’t like our over use of the intercom... they need to know as major supplier you wont getting too much rest... see you soon Harlan, day or night...” (SHAC website, “Harlan Interfauna get a night time visit”)

1^st November 2008 - Harlan, Loughborough

“Still photographs showing demos at various customers and suppliers of HLS including Harlan” (SHAC newsletter 50, “Words mean nothing action is everything”)

29^th December 2008 - Harlan, Blackthorn

“...the SHACtivists arrived for play time. We announced our arrival to the workers and security through our megaphones... we stayed until we were sure everyone knew why we were there...” (SHAC website “Demo at Harlan in Bicester”)

29^th December 2008 - Harlan, Loughborough

“...we must never forget that these places will close as long as we will keep the pressure...” (SHAC website and SHAC newsletter 51, “Pick your own day in Leicestershire”)

19^th January 2009 – Harlan, UK

“...Harlan beagle breeders saw protesters from 7am in the morning on Monday 19th security was upped...and employees were called into work an hour before we ever arrived. Number plates were covered up in the car parks...

…Tuesday 20th...protesters arrived again at Harlan and take police on a fun walk around the perimeter fence...” (SHAC website, “Three days of protest around the UK”)

26^th May 2009 – Harlan, Cheshire

“...the final visit today was to Harlan...Harlan – you’ll never see the last of SHAC unless you cut your ties with HLS…” (SHAC website, “Day 1 of mad science May UK tour – Cheshire”)

27^th May 2009 – Harlan, Leicestershire

“...we targeted more HLS collaborators. Armed with leaflets, placards, megaphones and plenty of determination...we weren’t the only ones to arrive at the gates of Harlan at the time, as we came face to face with the abusers themselves and gave them a dosage of the truth...” (SHAC website, “Day 2 of the UK tour – Leicestershire”)

28^th May 2009 - Harlan, Cambridgeshire

“...we paid another visit (to Harlan)...another loud and noisy demonstration and SHAC will keep on visiting you Harlan until you drop the puppy punchers HLS...” (SHAC website, “Day 3 of mad science May UK tour – Cambridgeshire”)

29^th May 2009 – Harlan, Reading

“...so we moved around side of the site as well as being at the front gate to make sure the murderers could see and hear us... SHAC will be visiting them time and time again until they get some ethics...” (SHAC website, “Day 4 of mad science May UK tour –Reading”)

1^st June 2009 – Harlan, UK

“Showing UK demo tour against Harlan and other HLS customers and suppliers.” (SHAC newsletter 52, “Mad science May”)

23^rd June 2009 - Harlan, Leicestershire

“Address of Harlan lab given…if the weekly demos from locals weren’t getting to you enough the new attention your getting from activists will... your gut–wrenching Harlan and we will be back...” (SHAC website, “Activists tour Leicestershire”)

29^th July 2009 - Harlan, Loughborough

“...yet again we fought Harlan by surprise as we arrived in the pouring rain for an afternoon of constant protest by 12 dedicated, angry and proactive campaigners... many more surprise demos to come - anyone can do them...” (SHAC website, “Another surprise demo at Harlan in Loughborough”)

3^rd August 2009 - Harlan, Loughborough

“...we tore through the silence with our megaphone letting every worker know why we where there...we will be back soon Puppy Killers...” (SHAC website, “Protest at animal supplier Harlan”)

19^th August 2009 - Harlan, Loughborough

“…constant protest echoing round the buildings for the afternoon. The workers scurried to get to their cars...rest assured Harlan, we will keep coming back, we will keep causing disruption until this place closes down…” Address of Harlan lab given. (SHAC website, “Another ‘pop up’ demo at Harlan”)

21^st September 2009 - Harlan, Loughborough

“...our megaphones tore through the air as security rushed back into the hut...” (SHAC website, “Animal breeder week starts off with Harlan UK protest”)

26^th September 2009 - Harlan, Loughborough

“the site was in complete lock down to however chants of ‘Harlan UK – blood on your hands’ were shouted...” Contact details of Harlan’s Belton site published. (SHAC website, “Protests continue after national at Highgate Farm”)

5^th October 2009 - Harlan, Loughborough

“...today activists turned up outside Harlan in Belton protesting from lunch time until the workers left...we made it clear then and will do now, that we are going to be outside that cruel place and standing up for these animals until it closes down...” (SHAC website, “Harlan demo in remembrance of Barry”)

9^th October 2010 – SHAC website

“there have been more demos in the last 4 month period than in any other time during SHAC’s history … The first three months of 2007 have seen a sharp increase of ALF attacks in the UK especially against Novartis and GSK”

25^th October 2010 - Harlan, Cambridgeshire

“...we stayed there until the last worker went home so they were reminded that what they do is not acceptable...” (SHAC website, “Thought police HQ visited and protest at Harlan Interfauna”)

25^th October 2010 – Daily Telegraph & certificates of conviction

2011 – SHAC website lists Harlan UK and Harlan Interfauna as companies dealing with HLS on a regular basis

29^th January 2011 – Harlan, UK

“...from the small breeders to the likes of Harlan - the ALF are watching and we will close you down. We will smash the breeders...” (Bite Back magazine, downloaded 12^th July 2011)

1^st February 2011 – Harlan, UK

“...every site of Harlan and Charles River will have angry groups of activists outside...” (NAVA website, “February fightback: important notice”, downloaded 12^th July 2011)

3^rd February 2011 – Harlan, UK

Harlan UK named as a client of Charles River Laboratories on the NAVA website, downloaded 13^th July 2011.

26^th February 2011 – Harlan, UK

“...activists made their way down the windy roads to find Harlan...as part of a day of action called by NAVA against Harlan...we decided to stay silent...” (SHAC website, “HLS beagle supplier has protest”)

26^th February 2011 – Harlan, UK

“...activists in the north started their day at different sites of Harlan as part of a day of action...” (SHAC website, “Vivisection industry suppliers and AstraZeneca have protests”)

27^th February 2011 - Harlan, UK

“...activists ran across the fields at the back of the site...as a handful of them (workers) scuttled out of the gate...they were treated to activists letting them there we will close Harlan down…At Harlan Derbyshire...workers were returning from their lunch break but decided to wait for police escort…” (NAVA website, “Mobile demo mayhem starts at Harlan in the north”, downloaded 12^th July 2011)

28^th February 2011 – Harlan, Cambridgeshire

Article entitled “East: eight cars of activists demo Interfauna” (NAVA website, downloaded 12^th July 2011)

14^th March 2011 - Harlan, Leicestershire

“...activists were running around the perimeter fence, others were at the gate letting the vivisection breeders know we never give in...” (NAVA website, “Sites invaded in mobile demos”, downloaded 12^th July 2011)

11^th April 2011 - Harlan, Loughborough

“...the company was in chaos and confusion as they attempted to operate the gates... as the staff finished leaving we headed on...” (NAVA website, “Staff seen out at Harlan sites”, downloaded 12^th July 2011.)

14^th April 2011 – Harlan, UK

“Save the Harlan Beagles campaign launched” (NAVA and www.indymedia.org.uk websites)

21^st April 2011 – HSBC Midlands

“...after recently hearing about HSBC providing a bank account to Harlan breeders we thought we’d head there and stage a protest against them... this was a first of more to come until they drop Harlan...” (NAVA website, “NAVA midlands hit Harland’s bankers” downloaded 12^th July 2011)

21^st April 2011 – Harlan, Loughborough

“...ten activists headed for Harlan Beagles...as workers drove out of the kennel compound, they were faced with a barrage of noise. Activists also kept security staff on their toes by running around the fields...reports of fences being scaled...the campaign against Harlan Beagles is intensifying...” (NAVA website, “Hammering down on Harlan”, downloaded 12^th July 2011)

23^rd – 29^th April 2011 – Harlan, UK

“...land outside the company gates was cordoned off and squatted with the aim of staying as long as possible...through out the week activists armed with placards and megaphones greeted workers in from 5am and out again...one activists managed to run into the compound...” (NAVA website, “Activists hold protest camp at Harlan”, downloaded 12^th July 2011)

23^rd April 2011 – Harlan, Hillcrest

DVD records four incidents of harassment and intimidation of Harlan employees as they seek to drive out of the main gate; protestor blocks vehicle; megaphone operated in close proximity to employee’s car.

24^th April 2011 – Harlan, Hillcrest

Protest camp outside main gate. Noise nuisance caused by megaphones. Constant obstruction of traffic seeking to gain access or egress from the site. A number of vehicles surrounded by protesters – occupants abused and intimidated.

26^th April 2011 – Harlan, Hillcrest

CCTV footage of protesters who force open the outer gate and contest the security of the site. Protestors trespass upon the site and are arrested. Luke Steele and Jonathan White are arrested.

27^th April 2011 – Harlan, Leicestershire

“...we have been protesting here and shouting at the workers as they come and go...” (NAVA website, “Leicester Mercury cover campaign”, downloaded 12^th July 2011)

14^th May 2011 – Harlan

“...Six banners were hung from bridges at motorway junctions in the area...we will continue with such publicity stunts and expose Harlan until the day they are closed...” (NAVA website, “Anti Harlan banner drops from M1 bridges”, downloaded 12^th July 2011)

2011 – Harlan, UK

“...organise and attend protests...contact Harlan and their suppliers...to complain about the company supplying beagles for vivisection...write to local newspapers...” (NAVA website, “Take action”, downloaded 12^th July 2011)

2011 – Harlan, UK

“...do you work for Harlan? Or perhaps one of their clients or suppliers?...blow the whistle on animal cruelty...” NAVA website, “Blow the whistle on Harlan”, downloaded 12^th July 2011)

1^st June 2011 – Cockburn veterinary group

“...regularly visits Harlan’s beagles units and act as their veterinary surgeons... contact them and let them (know) about the dogs Harlan breed for vivisection.” (NAVA website, “Cockburn veterinary group”, downloaded 12^th July 2011)

16^th June 2011 – Harlan, Leicestershire

“...activists from across the country will descend on Loughborough Town Centre and the Kennels this Saturday in protest against this facility...” (NAVA website, “Official NAVA statement: permission refused for Humberside beagle farm”, downloaded 12^th July 2011.)

18^th June 2011 – Harlan, Hillcrest

Video clips of aggressive and intimidatory protesting. Noise nuisance generated by megaphones. Protesters walk around the perimeter causing apprehension that they might seek to break into the site. Protesters photographed employees one protester obstructed an employee’s vehicle entering the site and “kicked” it.

6^th July 2011 – Harlan, Belton

“Activists gathered around the Harlan site in Belton for a demo … One handful of protestors headed towards the side and back of the site where the Beagles were in clear sight along with a number of workers, who were shamed and were forced to face the facts … A moving van was surrounded by a handful of activists, refusing to allow its way onto the site. The driver soon made the decision to leave - and never returned…The Save the Harlan Beagles campaign is not only growing in numbers, it is growing in strength … our compassion and determination to close this hell hole down is reinforced by the hope and the fact that we will win.” (Nava website, “Protest at the Beagle Kennels”)

10^th July 2011 – Harlan, UK

NAVA press release commenting on Sunday Times article criticising Harlan’s husbandry of Beagle dogs, stating “NAVA have headed calls to close the beagle kennels down” and “Many industry figureheads, such as P & O Ferries and DFDS Seaways, have refused to conduct shipments of animals from Harlan following pressure from campaigners. These consignments of dogs were destined for European research centres.” Luke Steele is quoted as “Chairman of NAVA”.

11^th July 2011 – Harlan, Cambridgeshire

Letter sent to Harlan Wyton, Cambridgeshire

“From Animal liberation Front. Find all the dogs a new home within one month. And do no more experiments on animal. We will give you one month. From (th)is letter. We will blow you up.”

11^th July 2011 – Harlan, UK

Luke Steele “of NAVA” quoted in Daily Mirror article criticising Harlan’s husbandry of Beagle dogs.

11^th July 2011 – Harlan, UK

“...activists held protest at the gates of Harlan, to make clear their opposition... thankfully, clients are closing down and terminating contracts so the Belton sites future looks uncertain…” (NAVA website, “Another demo hits Harlan”, downloaded 12^th July 2011)

11^th July 2011 – Grant Thornton LLP

Letter from Martin Simmons of NAVA to Grant Thornton LLP, accountants, inviting them to terminate their relationship with Harlan.

“...we ask that you take the above information into account and review your business arrangements with the company...”

12^th July 2011 – Harlan

“...NAVA are calling an emergency National demonstration at the site this Saturday in response to expose and increase calls to close these sordid kennels down...” (NAVA website)

14^th July 2011 – NAVA facebook page

Material downloaded from the NAVA facebook. Represents that a supplier (Thistle East Midlands Hotel) has resigned from Harlan. Incites protesters to contact the home/mobile telephones and email addresses of 5 Harlan employees represents that NAVA UK “follows” the ALF and SHAC campaigns on twitter. Includes photograph of two ALF activists rescuing animals under the caption “Saved from research by the ALF. www.facebook.com (facebook website)

15^th July 2011 – Harlan, Hillcrest

Material downloaded from the NAVA website claims that “Harlan Hillcrest Beagle Farm to close”; announcement coincides with demonstration scheduled to commence at 12pm on 16th July 2011. National demonstration to be directed against Harlan Wyton on 27th August 2011. NAVA website

16^th July 2001 – Harlan, Hillcrest

Protest.

23^rd July 2011 – Harlan, Wyton

Protest by 16 male and 17 female protestors. Use of megaphones in breach of the order dated 15^th July 2011.

27^th August 2011 – Harlan, Wyton

Protest – national demonstration.

1^st September 2011 – Harlan, Wyton

Protest.

3^rd November 2011 – UK – Stericycle

NAVA press release announces demonstrations at Stericycle (“SRCL”) (clinical and specialist waste management company) HQ in Leeds, to take place on 8^th November 2011.

“Leeds-based SRCL have hit the spotlight as a result of dealings with the company… SRCL collect the carcasses of beagle dogs killed at Harlan Interfauna and transport them for incineration at their site in Cross Green. NAVA has called upon the company to cut the contract… NAVA’s Yorkshire Branch have vowed to step up the pressure on SRCL…”

Luke Steele held out as chair and contact for NAVA.

4^th November 2011 – Stericycle

Claimants’ solicitors write to NAVA and Luke Steele informing them that SRCL is a service provider to Harlan and that the Order dated 5^th October 2011 applied. No reply received

14^th November 2011 – Stericycle

27^th November 2011 - NAVA announce that the Claimants’ General Manager has resigned as a result of the NAVA campaign. (NAVA website)

23^rd January 2012 – Lakeside Lodge Golf Course

NAVA announce that Lakeside Lodge Golf Course, has resigned the contract with Harlan because of NAVAs campaign (NAVA website)

5^th & 26^th January 2012 - criminal damage at SRCL’s premises in Leeds

“SRCL are a vital supplier to Harlan...In the dead of night we climbed over the fences at the Head Office in Leeds. Walls were spraypainted with slogans against Harlan and vivisection. Locks on the building were superglued shut and damage also done to the bike shed… For every bloodsoaked penny you make from this contract we will double it in costs” (Bite Back website)

24^th January 2012 – Harlan suppliers

“There are few companies who are willing to be associated with Harlan and here we bring you the hardcore. These are the ones keeping the kennels open and the beagles living in squalor. All of them have been informed about the staff punching and kicking dogs, but do not care – some even laughed when we told them. Make calls, send email, carry out demos and dismantle the vivisection breeders brick by brick. The beagles have nobody but you.” (NAVA website)

The companies listed include Cambridge Pet Crematorium, Cockburn Veterinary Group, Lakeside Lodge Golf Course, Ryder PLC, SRCL, Sunlight Service Group, Repton Security.

24^th January 2012 – Cambridge Pet Crematorium

NAVA announce that Cambridge Pet Crematorium has resigned its contract with Harlan (NAVA website)

i)

25^th & 26^th January 2012 – Sunlight

The ALF commit 2 criminal damage actions against Sunlight’s premises in Leeds and Coventry because it supplies Harlan. Sunlight was one of the companies identified by NAVA in its publication dated 24^th January 2012.

“We visited Sunlight in Leeds because they provide laundry facilities to Harlan. Locks were filled with glue and we spray painted slogans on their walls. When the Harlan dogs are left without justice we make it out mission to bring justice. Harlan will be torn down. ALF” (Bite Back magazine)

“Sunlight in Coventry was our focus. This company deals with Harlan so also deal with the ALF. The depot walls were painted with slogans against these puppy killers. Animal Liberation Front.” (Bite Back magazine)

23^rd February 2012 – DFDS Seaways

NAVA announce that DFDS Seaways will no longer accept sea shipment of animals by ferry. www.facebook.com (NAVA website)

27^th February 2012 – Harlan, Wyton

NAVA announce a demonstration at Harlan scheduled for 2pm on 6th March 2012 “Please bring megaphones (etc)…and dress in black with a face cover or balaclava.” (NAVA website)

29^th February 2012 – Harlan, Wyton

NAVA website announces protesting activities outside Harlan Wyton scheduled for 17 March 2012 (held out as the 22nd anniversary of the theft of 83 Beagle Puppies and 26 Rabbits from Harlem on the 17th March 1990).

Downloaded 14^th March 2012 – Monock Freight and Air- France

SHAC website publishes names and addresses of companies identified as “targets” of the SHAC campaign. These include Monock Freight, Air-France and Impex

Downloaded 14^th March 2012 – Air-France and KLM

Publication of protests conducted against Air-France and KLM by SHAC, including downloads from the website www.airsouffrance.fr (protests conducted on 8^th November 2011, 21^st December 2011 and 3^rd March 2012)

Publication of unlawful action against Air France -KLM published in Bite Back magazine: action taken in countries outside UK and billboards for Air France-KLM spray painted in north of England.

Downloaded 14^th March 2012 – Monock Freight & PDP Couriers

“On the night of 12^th February we struck against PDP Couriers and Monock Freight. Both companies ferry documents, goods and animals to Huntingdon Life Sciences. First we went to the home of [x].This scumbag is a driver for PDP. We ruined his precious car and spray painted his house. Next we paid a visit to [y] and gave him the same treatment… “(Bite Back magazine)

“Last night (21^st February) volunteers from the Animal Liberation Front attacked the home of Monock Freight Director, []…. While you and your wife [m] slept in your beds we were stripping the paint from your car and emptying a can of spray paint over the vehicle and your house. Is it still a good idea to deal with Huntingdon Life Sciences [y]? ….Let us tell you, this action is really rather tame compared to what we have planned for you, your family, your colleagues, your colleagues families …..Animal Liberation Front” (Bite Back magazine)

“Monock Freight are complete and utter scum…[z] Director Monock Freight .. got a fraction of what he deserves when the ALF visited his home and paint-strippered his vehicles...For those that have died because of you [z] remember their deaths are your fault – ALF” (Bite Back magazine)

14^th March 2012 – Gateway to hell campaign

“Gateway to hell campaign” launched on Alagenda.ch website, believed to be website of ALF. The aim is to prevent the transportation of live animals (other than pets) by air, sea and land.

15^th March 2012 – Press article

Article in Times reporting that NAVA was moving its focus to the few foreign airlines, including Air France, that transport live animals.

18^th March 2012 – Press article

17^th March 2012 – Harlan, Wyton

Protest by 60 protestors, some wearing beagle masks.

13^th April 2012 – Harlan, Wyton

Protest by 30-35 protestors on the edge of the exclusion zone. No notice given. Constant use of loud hailers abusing employees. Employees photographed. Protestors’ activities within the exclusion zone were not confined to the Designated Protest Area (“DPA”)

Vehicles leaving the site were obstructed with protestors forming a tunnel along Sawtry Way involving loud hailer abuse, through which employees vehicles had to drive.

Three female protestors were seen immediately outside the entrance gate, outside the leafleting zone. They were spitting on a copy of the injunction.

12^th May 2012 – Harlan Shardlow, Blackthorn

Attempted e-mail blockade

18^th May 2012 – Harlan, Wyton

Protest by 21 protestors on the edge of the exclusion zone. No notice given in breach of the order. Constant use of loud hailers. . Protestors form a tunnel along Sawtry Way through which employees are forced to drive.

24^th – 26^th May 2012 – Harlan, Wyton

Protest camp involving between 1-8 protestors at any given time. No notice given in breach of the order. Protesting activities conducted outside the DPA. Loud hailers used. Protestors obstructed employees’ vehicles entering or leaving site. Some vehicles surrounded by protestors. Employees photographed. Use of loud hailers, protesting outside the DPA, shouting at employees and hitting cars of employees as they left the site.

8^th June 2012 – Harlan, Wyton

Protest by 25 protestors. No notice given. Employees photographed. Employees’ vehicles obstructed along Sawtry Way with protestors deliberately standing in the public highway. Protests within exclusion zone are not confined to the DPA.

Arun Mathai stood outside the DPA. He shouted abuse at employees leaving the site.

13^th July 2012 – Harlan, Wyton

Protest by approximately 23 protestors. No notice was given in breach of the order. Conducted in a loud and aggressive manner. Loud hailers operated in the exclusion zone. Employees photographed. Protestors continually trespassed out of the DPA. Obstruction of vehicles entering and leaving the site.

16^th July 2012 – Convictions

Under the heading “animal rights prisoners” SHAC states that Sarah Whitehead, Gavin Medd-Hall and Heather Nicholson have all received custodial sentences for criminal actions carried out in connection with the campaign against HLS. (SHAC website).

17^th July 2012 – Birmingham Crown Court

Luke Steele and Jonathan White convicted of criminal offences arising out of action against Harlan UK.

17^th July 2012 – Facebook

New facebook page opened by Arun Mathai called NAVA: OPERATION HARLAN, encouraging action against Harlan.

27^th July 2012 – Birmingham Crown Court

Luke Steele sentenced to 18 months imprisonment; Jonathan White 7 months suspended for 18 months. ASBO’s imposed. Luke Steele held out by ALF and ALFSG as one of their prisoners.

29^th July 2012 – Press article

Observer article about Harlan Blackthorn entitled “Inside the lab where animal testing staff live in fear”. “Science editor Robert McKie gains rare access to the beleaguered lab where rats and mice are bred for essential medical research….The twin gates topped with razor wire and spikes, would do justice to a prison…One female Harlan worker told the Observer: “When you arrived in the morning you would have to queue for up to five minutes to get through the gates. Their loudhailers were deafening. They would scream at you that you were a puppy killer and would bang on your car. It was horrible, I was left shaking for hours afterwards. A male colleague was equally affected: “It is part of their methodology to equate animal work with paedophilia. If they find out your name, you will appear on their website as a paedophile… Another Harlan worker found out that his neighbours had all been sent notes claiming that he was a rapist.”

3^rd August 2012 – Harlan, Wyton

Protesting activities by 5 protestors who hide in the bushes aside the front gates in breach of the order. No notice given. Two protestors walked around the side perimeter fence. Employees entering and leaving the site were harassed.

8^th August 2012 - Harlan, Wyton

Protesting activities by 4 protestors who positioned themselves at the front gate in breach of the order. No notice given. Subsequently 2 protestors walked around the perimeter fence before returning to the front gate.

A vehicle driven by a female contractor was surrounded and loud hailers operated against her at close range.

25^th August 2012 – Cambridge

National march against Harlan. Demonstrators demand the closure of the Harlan laboratories in the UK.

27^th September 2012 – Harlan, Wyton

Protesting activities by 11 protestors. 3 individuals arrested for alleged breach of the injunction including Aran Mathai and Rachel Mathai for using loud hailers in the DPA and Edmund Mails for an unknown offence.