IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 1998-M-No.851 QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION BETWEEN MONSANTO PLC Plaintiff - and - (1) ROWAN TI LLY (2) JO HAMILTON (3) KATHRYN TULIP (4) MELANIE JARMAN (5) ZOE ELFORD Defendants DEFENCE 1. The generality of paragraph 1 of the statement of claim is admitted but the Plaintiff is put to strict proof of the contents in this particular case. At present and prior to discovery and/or the administration of interrogatories, it is averred that the Plaintiff's activities are and were at all material times unlawful and/or illegal. 2. The Defendants are and were at all material times supporters of a campaign named genetix snowball. GenetiX snowball is a campaign of nonviolent civil responsibility which aims to build resistance to new genetic engineering technology on grounds which include that there are unpredictable effects and it is unsafe and/or harmful for humans and ecology and that it is irreversible. It is averred that the creation of genetically modified ("GM") plants and crops: (a) permits the transfer of genes between totally unrelated organisms circumventing natural species barriers and permits the random incorporation of these genes into a plant's own DNA with results which include unpredictable side effects; (b) exposes humans to unpredictable toxic and allergenic effects; (c) greatly enhances the potential for the creation of new and more virulent viruses; (d) is linked to increased and extended use of harmful chemicals, such as herbicides, and the increased creation of monocultures all of which are detrimental to land and water ecology, have a detrimental impact on food security and create a public health risk through contamination of food and pollution of air, land and water courses; increases the risk of exposure of humans and animals to antibiotic resistant bacterial pathogens; (e) by the incorporation of antibiotic resistance genes into GM plants, increases the risk of exposure of humans and animals to antibiotic resistant bacterial pathogens; (f) allows or risks cross-pollination with non-GM plants thereby creating plants with the same or similar characteristics as the GM plants, including herbicide resistant weeds and crops and other unpredictable and potentially dangerous results which endanger ecology and cause harm to crops belonging to other farmers; (g) risks horizontal gene transfer from GM plants to soil and water borne bacteria; (h) through the system of patenting, undermines the autonomy of farmers and takes ownership, out of common and into corporate ownership often by pirating locally developed knowledge and genetic resources. 3.The Defendants aver that the purposes or objects of genetix snowball are: (i) to obtain a five year moratorium on the deliberate release of GM plants in Britain except for government sponsored, ecological health and safety tests (in enclosed systems) and; (ii) the removal by government agency, the farmers or the biotech companies of all GM plants already existing. 4. The acts of uprooting and the encouraging of others to uproot no more than 100 GM plants and crops is part of the campaign aimed at achieving the purposes and objects set out in paragraph 3 above. By way of clarification it is denied that the purposes and objects of genetix snowball or the Defendants include the removal of all GM plants and crops already existing by uprooting, destruction or damage. The Defendants deny that they or genetix snowball had any intention to cause injury or damage to the Plaintiff and it is averred that any injury to the Plaintiff is an unavoidable by-product of pursuing the purposes and objects set out in paragraph 3 above. 5. With respect to paragraph 3 of the statement of claim, it is admitted that on 4th July 1998 the Defendants entered the test field site for GM plants at Model Farm, Shirburn, Oxfordshire, having given prior notice to the owner of the test field site, the Environment Agency, the Thames Valley Police and the Plaintiff. 6. The First Defendant uprooted 1 GM plant. The Second Defendant uprooted 25 GM plants. The Third Defendant uprooted 64 GM plants. The Fourth Defendant uprooted 50 GM plants. The Fifth Defendant uprooted 34 GM plants. All the uprooted GM plants were then sealed by the Defendants in bags clearly marked as a biohazard. 7. It is denied that the GM plants "belong" to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff is put to strict proof thereof. It is further denied that at any material time was the Plaintiff the owner or in possession of the GM plants. It is further denied that the Defendants' acts were unlawful. Further or alternatively the acts of the Defendants were necessary to protect third parties and their property and/or were in the public interest. Further or alternatively, as the Plaintiff's activities as pleaded in paragraph 1 of the statement of claim were unlawful, the Plaintiff is not entitled to found any claim. 8. In relation to the damage caused, the Plaintiff is put to strict proof of the value of the GM plants said to be destroyed. It is denied that the cost of the physical care of the GM plants and/or overheads incurred before 4 July 1 998 is damage consequential on the Defendants actions. It is denied that the damage pleaded was caused by the Defendants' intention to injure the Plaintiff. 9. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the statement of claim are denied 10. It is specifically denied that the actions of the Defendants were unlawful. If, which is denied, there was any unlawful interference or conspiracy by the Defendants, such unlawful interference or conspiracy had no intention to injure the Plaintiff or cause the Plaintiff damage. Further or alternatively, the acts of the Defendants were necessary to protect third parties and their property and/or were in the public interest. Further or alternatively, as the Plaintiff's activities as pleaded in paragraph 1 of the statement of claim were unlawful, the Plaintiff is not entitled to found any claim. 12. In relation to paragraph 6 of the statement of claim1 the Defendants rely on the matters pleaded above. It is denied that the Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction as pleaded or at all or entitled to damages as pleaded or at all. STEPHENC RAGG Served this 3rd September 1 998 by Leigh Day & Co solicitors of Priory House, 25 St John's Lane, London EC1 M 4LB, solicitors for the Defendants.