Kathryn Tulip is one of five women who undertook the first snowball action on the 4th July 1998 at a Monsanto trial site in Oxfordshire. She is a qualified solicitor and explains the legal consequences of the action and the implications for other potential snowballers.

The use of lengthy civil court proceedings with injunctions and the threat of huge claims for damages and costs is a technique which is being used against those who speak out against the actions of government and corporations. The aim is to attempt to dispirit activists and to discourage others from participating in protest. These court proceedings have become known as SLAPPs - Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. Whilst more common in North America they are increasingly being used in Britain, for example against road protesters and in the McLibel case. As our legal case continues it is becoming clear that Monsanto's strategy is more concerned with promoting fear, uncertainty and doubt in the minds of potential snowballers than in recovering damages and legal costs. Monsanto's actions against us are a classic SLAPP.

In September, just days before the GenetiX Harvest action, Monsanto obtained a further temporary injunction against us and also against our media liaison, Andrew Wood. The terms of this second injunction are broader than the first injunction and in addition to preventing us from uprooting crops the injunction also prevents us from trespassing on Monsanto owned land and from planting or inserting anything into the ground at the sites.

In addition to the six named individuals the injunction also applies to 'any other person being a member of the unincorporated association known as genetiX snowball'. GenetiX snowball is not a membership organisation so it is unclear who these 'members' might be, but it is likely that those who have worked closely with us or who have received a training from us would be considered by the court to be 'members' of genetiX snowball and therefore subject to the terms of the injunction, even though they may never have seen the injunction papers. The named injunctees are also sued 'on behalf of other members of genetiX snowball' which means that we could be found to be in breach of the injunction if a group that we had supported or trained then went on to do an action at a Monsanto site. This is a very wide ranging injunction and the High Court appears to have been only too ready to assist Monsanto in their aim of stopping the genetiX snowball campaign.

In January, Monsanto's lawyers sent another bundle of papers; an application for summary judgement. At the summary judgement hearing on 19th/20th April Monsanto will ask the court to grant them a permanent injunction against us but have dropped their claim for damages. Monsanto claim their case is now very simple and that we have no defence, so that a summary hearing of one and half days without any expert witnesses attending the court is appropriate. If the judge agrees with Monsanto, then our arguments against genetic engineering will not be heard in Court. It appears that Monsanto have dropped their damages claim in order to avoid the public relations disaster of a full hearing.

At the summary judgment hearing, Monsanto will also ask the court to order us to provide the names and addresses of everyone who has received a copy of the genetiX snowball 'Handbook for Action'. Monsanto's solicitors, propose to send a copy of the injunction order to each handbook recipient to 'ensure that any injunction granted comes to the attention of those persons who might otherwise be encouraged to do an act prohibited by the injunction granted'. It appears that Monsanto now want the Court to broaden the scope of the injunction so that everyone who has received a copy of the handbook would be injuncted on the same terms as the six defendants.

Whilst Monsanto appears to invite public debate about GM crops and food on the one hand, on the other, it uses legal intimidation in an attempt to silence people who are opposed to GM crops. We refuse to be intimidated by Monsanto, it is our right to speak out, it is our democratic right to veto the introduction of GM crops and food.