Huntingdon Life Sciences Group Plc v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Holland |
| Judgment Date | 15 March 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] EWHC 522 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ03X01149 |
| Date | 15 March 2007 |
[2007] EWHC 522 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN's BENCH DIVISION
the Hon Mr. Justice Holland
Case No: HQ03X01149
Robert Anderson QC and T. Lawson-Cruttenden (instructed by Lawson-Cruttenden & Co) for the Claimants
Dr. Max Gastone as lay advocate for the Defendants
Hearing dates: 5 th, 6 th, 7 th, 8 th, 9 th and 15 th March 2007
Mr. Justice Holland
Introduction
The First Claimants (“HLS”) conduct research for the pharmaceutical, medical and allied industries. They do so in a substantial way (there are some 1,100 employees) at two large establishments, the principal one being situate near Alconbury in Cambridgeshire, the secondary one being situate near Occold in Suffolk. Crucially, for present purposes, such research involves experimentation on live animals subject to the provisions of the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and inspections by Home Office Inspectors.
The Second Claimant is the managing Director of the First Claimants. He sues as representative for their employees in reliance upon the provisions of CPR 19.6, it being self evident that he and they have the same interest in the claim. I shall give more attention to CPR 19.6 at the later stages of this judgment.
The present Defendants, an unincorporated association known as Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (“SHAC”) were originally the first of ultimately thirteen Defendants to this claim. During the four years since its inception the remaining twelve Defendants have for one reason or another ceased to participate as litigants, leaving before the Court these First Defendants as the only defending party. As to their nature and stance, I need only adopt the concise summary of Mackay J.:
“The First Defendant (which I shall call “SHAC) is an unincorporated association. It is a group of people who share a common purpose. All are strongly opposed to vivisection. All share the aim of closing down HLS as a business. It has a website and it issues newsletters, but has no formal structure by way of membership, a committee, appointed officers or any constitution, as far as the evidence currently before the Court shows. It is said by the Defendants who appeared before me to be a large but disparate group of people drawn together by their opposition to HLS and its work.”
I should add that Mr. Greg Avery, the founder of SHAC and a dedicated protestor, gave evidence before me, inter alia, so as to confirm the foregoing description.
As with the employees of HLS, the forensic position of these Defendants is governed by CPR 19.6. Since something will turn upon it, the provisions of CPR 19.6(1) merit citation:
“Where more than one person has the same interest in a claim –
(a) the claim may be begun; or
(b) the Court may order that the claim be continued;
by or against one or more of the persons who have the same interest as representatives of any other persons who have that interest.”
When the matter was before Mackay J. (as to which see later) in May 2004 this provision was overlooked with respect to SHAC. Happily, and to the benefit of all, in June 2004 Dr. Max Gastone effectively offered his services as the representative of SHAC for the purposes of CPR 19.6. To the extent that the claim is for final injunctive relief that position is maintained so that Dr. Gastone has appeared before me as representative of, and lay advocate for SHAC.
Turning to the relevant history, it starts for present purposes with the inception and conduct of a campaign avowedly to force closure of HLS. Such campaign embraced lawful protest but, as a recurring feature, much that was plainly unlawful, and seriously unlawful at that. Targeted were the premises of HLS together with its employees, their vehicles and homes. The essential aim was to make the respective lives of the latter so intolerable that the resultant pressures would bring about the demise of HLS – at least of so much of the organisation as engaged in vivisection. In the result there was much by way of criminal behaviour (leading to a large number of convictions) and by way of individual trauma and distress.
Not surprisingly HLS turned to the Court for injunctive relief. In the result Pitchers J. made an interim Order on the 16 th April 2003, which Order was continued on the 20 th June 2003 by Gibbs J. Then on the 28 th May 2004 Mackay J. made a similar Order serving to bind SHAC and others until trial. It is that trial which has been conducted before me with a view to the making of a final Order.
It is common ground that the situation has changed for the better over the intervening period. Adverting, first, to those who engage solely (whether willingly or reluctantly) in protest that is lawful, the current Order has served to provide a mutually understood structure – that is, understood by protestors, by HLS, and by the relevant Police Forces. As will become apparent, there is no current attempt to deny HLS some injunctive relief. The need for such is not in dispute, what are sought are variations on the so far existing Order. Adverting, second, to those who engage in unlawful activities under the guise of protest, the activities of such have thankfully lessened in frequency with the dampening effect of the passage of time, bolstered by the fact of an Order and by the additional armoury as afforded to the Police by way of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. That said, nobody can safely ignore the potential for these activities and in so far as a Court Order can stem this, then it should obviously be framed with that amongst other aims.
The Trial
Once there was a tacit concession on the part of the Defendants that injunctive relief approximating to that imposed by MacKay J. had to continue, the potential length of any trial was immediately curtailed, with the Court's focus being essentially directed to the variations on the earlier Order that were now sought. Following openings of the respective cases on Monday, 5 th March 2007, the following day was occupied by views of the respective HLS sites with the parties represented and the relevant senior police officers in attendance. This exercise proved to be quite invaluable, enabling me to produce a draft Order as a focus for the balance of the trial. Issue was taken with certain of the essentially provisional terms and sustained with a modest amount of helpful oral evidence. For the rest it has been a matter for submissions and argument ably and truly helpfully conducted by Mr. Anderson QC and Dr. Gastone. A word for the latter as a lay advocate would not come amiss: by way of realistic moderation he served SHAC well and contributed to the expeditious conduct of the trial to the benefit of HLS and, more particularly, the Court.
I turn to the issues, starting with the Order.
The Order
First, a word about my general approach. Given the fact of an Order prevailing unchallenged for nearly three years to substantially good effect, it is not surprising that pragmatically it has been assumed by all (and I include myself) that this existing Order provides the template for a Final Order with variations from such having to be justified by reference to principle, further or alternatively by weight of evidence. I have had to remind myself that as a matter of general principle the 'bottom line' is not the existing Order but the entitlement of SHAC to engage in lawful protest, unfettered save for good reason. Thus it is for HLS to justify an Order (which it admittedly has done); it is for HLS to justify opposition to such liberalising variations as have been proposed.
Second, a word about my specific approach. Appended to this judgment is the Order as I adjudge it to be, subject to minor additions yet to be debated. In the body of this judgment I focus upon and justify all such terms as are, to my knowledge, potentially contentious.
Issues
Protestors. The Order itself focuses upon 'Protestors' with respect to conduct vis á vis HLS and its employees when in defined areas. Plainly it is important carefully to define 'Protestors' for the purpose of the Order, that is, to define the persons upon whom the Order impacts. Dr. Gastone as representative of SHAC did not oppose a definition that caught those who acknowledge allegiance to SHAC as a campaigning body but he expressed concern at a definition which served to add in persons who, whilst similarly hostile to HLS and its vivisectionist activities, nonetheless considered themselves to be independent of SHAC – could such persons be properly subject to an Order made by way of a claim addressed to SHAC? For HLS, Mr. Anderson QC was concerned to give a wide definition to 'Protestors': the essence of the Order was to establish control over Exclusion Zones with respect to all therein who were engaged in protest. Granted that the primary concern was with those under the SHAC umbrella whose conduct, historically, had brought about the inception and continuation of injunctive relief, it would effectively nullify the effect of any Order if a protestor could evade its restraints by pleading allegiance to an association other than SHAC.
Given their concerns the Defendants called as a witness Dr. Daniel Lyons. For some 14 years he has been active in the conduct of an anti-vivisectionist protest organisation entitled Uncaged. He emphasised its dedication to lawful, peaceful activities and he expounded its philosophy and conduct so as to identify it as wholly separate from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AGC Chemicals Europe Ltd v Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty
...before this case and which arose before Holland J. in Huntingdon Life Sciences Group PLC and others v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty [2007] EWHC 522 QB Holland J. did not allow the rule to be used in this way and I was urged by Dr. Max Gastone to follow that decision. 28. CPR 19.6 (4) prov......
-
AGC Chemicals Europe Ltd v Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty
...before this case and which arose before Holland J. inHuntingdon Life Sciences Group PLC and others v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty [2007] EWHC 522QB. Holland J. did not allow the rule to be used in this way and I was urged by Dr. Max Gastone to follow that decision. 28 CPR 19.6 (4) provide......
-
Harlan Laboratories UK Ltd (for and on behalf of its officers and employees and the officers and employees of Harlan Laboratories Inc. and its subsidiaries Worldwide) and Another v Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty ("SHAC") (an unincorporated association by its representative Greg Avery acting for and on behalf of the members of SHAC who are conducting activities against the Claimants) and Others
......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 ... 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 ...It supplies Huntingdon Life Sciences Ltd ("HLS"). HLS, and companies associated with HLS, have been the target of a sustained ......