Tuesday 20th April 1999
PRESS RELEASE

Monsanto loses application:
Gen


On Tuesday April 20th, after a two day hearing in the High Court 
in London, Monsanto plc lost its application for permanent 
injunctions against six defendants from genetiX snowball [1]. 
Monsanto’s lawyers had claimed it was ‘inconceivable’ that the 
defendants might have justification for uprooting its genetically 
modified (GM) plants on the 4th July last year[2]. The temporary 
injunctions which Monsanto had already obtained continue[3]  The 
defendants won the right to a full trial, expected within the next 
four months.. Documents served on the defendants by Monsanto 
showed their intention to ask the defendants to provide a list of all 
persons who had received a copy of genetiX snowball’s ‘Handbook 
for Action’.  For unknown reasons Monsanto dropped this demand 
before the hearing.

On the first day of the hearing over one hundred people gathered 
outside the court to demonstrate their support for the defendants and 
their opposition to GM food and crops.  Mutant vegetables including a 
carrot, corn cob and tomato lent their support to the protest. The carrot 
later attended court, with no objection from the judge.  Many people 
attended to express their outrage that the mere possession of the 
‘Handbook for Action’ might lead to legal action by Monsanto.

Monsanto had claimed three torts (or civil wrongs) by the defendants. 
Firstly ‘trespass to goods’ (pulling up crops), secondly interference 
with business and finally conspiracy to injure.  The defendants claimed 
they had lawful excuse[4]  for the trespass to goods and that any 
interference to business was incidental. The judge, Mr Justice Klevan, 
stated that the issue of whether the defendants had lawful excuse for 
their actions was an issue that he felt was of great concern, and he 
therefore could not order the summary judgement which Monsanto 
were seeking.  

The judge was asked to clarify the issue of the representative nature of 
the injunction whereby the six defendants could be held liable for the 
actions of others.  He ordered that the present injunctions be amended 
such that the defendants would only be liable for the actions of those 
acting ‘on [genetiX snowball’s] authority or behalf’. i.e the defendants 
cannot be held liable for individuals uprooting crops without their 
explicit direction.

In a further blow, Monsanto was refused leave to appeal the decision.  

CONTACT: Andrew Wood Tel: 0973 953 446, 
page: 07654 247 502

Editors Notes

[1] In the case Monsanto v Tilly and others (case No. 1998-M-No. 
1180) three of the named defendants: Zoe Elford, Melanie Jarman and 
Kathryn Tulip represented themselves in court. The other three 
defendants: Jo Hamilton,  Rowan Tilly and Andrew Wood were 
represented by barristers Own Davies Q.C. and Stephen Cragg.  
Monsanto were represented by Solicitors Row & More. The defendants 
were advised by solicitor Daniel Bennett of Leigh, Day & Co.

[2] Monsanto claimed the defendants trespassed on their goods (their 
plants) on July 4th 1998 [2]. On this date, the five women defendants, 
openly and accountably uprooted genetically modified (GM) plants at a 
Monsanto demonstration site at Model Farm, Shirburn in Oxfordshire. 
Although arrested they were not charged with a criminal offence. Ten 
days later Monsanto applied for and was granted a temporary 
injunction. The sixth defendant who acts as the press liaison for the 
genetiX snowball campaign was added to the temporary injunction in 
September 1998 prior to the fourth genetiX snowball action. See press 
release July 4th 1998 ‘First arrests in Britain for puling up genetically 
modified crops’.

[3] The injunction which will stay in place until a full trial restrains the 
defendants from  trespassing on Monsanto’s land and premises; 
uprooting, damaging or interfering with any of Monsanto’s plants or 
crops at their GM release sites (“the Sites”); planting, inserting into the 
ground or leaving any crops or other article at any of the Sites; 
attempting or conspiring with others to do the aforementioned acts. The 
named defendants are being ‘sued on their own behalf and on behalf of 
all members of genetiX snowball’. Breach of injunction could mean a 
custodial sentence of up to two years imprisonment.

[4]  Lawful excuse in this case refers to the Criminal Law Act 1967, 
section 3, which states ‘a person may use such force as is reasonable in 
the circumstances in th

Picture Editors’ Notes

[1] Pictures of: the defendants on the steps of the Royal Courts of 
Justice; over one hundred people holding aloft copies of genetiX 
snowball’s ‘Handbook for Action’; and a twenty meter long banner 
reading ‘Fair hearing for snowball; Full trial for genetics’ are available 
from freelance photographers Nic Cobbing: 0973 642 103 and Rob 
Todd: 07977 275 563. Video footage on all formats available from 
freelance film maker Zoe Broughton:

[2] Photographs of genetiX snowball actions and previous court 
appearances are available on ImageNet under the David Hoffman or 
ISF sections. David Hoffman: 0181 981 5041. ISF: 01628 542 554.  
The David Hoffman photo library carries copies of photographs from 
the first genetiX snowball action on 4th July 1998.  Video footage of the 
other court appearances and the first genetiX snowball action on July 
4th 1998 by five of the defendants in Oxfordshire available on all 
formats from award winning film maker Zoe Broughton on: 0961 181 
576
genetiX snowball 
A campaign of nonviolent civil responsibility
One World Centre, 6 Mount Street, Manchester M2 5NS Tel: 0161 834 0295  Fax: 0161 834 8187
Browse: http://www.gn.apc.org/pmhp/gs 	       Press liaison: Andrew Wood 0973 953 446 or page 07654 247502