The women were arrested but later released and no criminal charges have been brought. Instead Monsanto started civil court proceedings. Within ten days they had obtained temporary injunctions preventing the women damaging or interfering with their GM crops. They also claimed unlimited damages for interference with their commercial and business interests.
At a hearing this April, Monsanto asked for the injunctions to be made permanent saying that there was no defence to their claim. The defendants maintained that they had a defence of justification in the public interest and that the case should proceed to a full civil court trial . This defence would include protecting the environment, other farmers crops, consumers food, etc. The judge, Justice Klevan agreed.
Monsanto have now appealed the Judge's decision. They say that the defence of justification in the public interest is not available to the defendants because they have carried out an unlawful act. The appeal will be held in the Court No. 3, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London.
If Monsanto, the appellants in the Court of Appeal, are successful then permanent injunctions will be made against the defendants. If the defendants, known in the Court of Appeal as the respondents, are successful then the case will proceed to a full civil court trial. Monsanto could then apply to the law lords to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal. Another biotechnology company AgrEvo/PGS have a similar legal case against genetiX snowball. If the respondents win then the AgrEvo legal case will be consolidated with the Monsanto action and will go to trial together.
Three of the defendants: Zoe Elford, Melanie Jarman and Kathryn Tulip will represent themselves in court. The others: Rowan Tilly, Jo Hamilton and Andrew Wood will be represented by barristers Richard Gordon Q.C. and Stephen Cragg. Solicitor Daniel Bennett of Leigh Day & Co. is acting for the represented defendants. Monsanto are represented by solicitors Rowe & Maw (motto 'lawyers to business') at the Appeal Hearing.
Three judges will oversee the hearing. The principle justice will be Lord Justice Nourse, the other judges are expected to be Lord Justice Pill and Lord Justice Mummery.
There will be no new evidence presented at the Appeal Hearing. Non governmental organisations have written to the judges asking that the case to go to trial, on the grounds of public interest.
There are two primary indicators by which one can judge whether legal action by a company is justified or whether it is a SLAPP and therefore an abuse of the legal system and should be challenged. · The first is the amount of damages that is being sought is normally totally disproportionate to the alleged 'offence' that has been carried out … Secondly SLAPPs are very rarely meant to go to court for a full trial. Companies or governments use injunctions as a way of stopping legitimate protest from being undertaken.
The Writ of Summons that Monsanto first sought last year on the 15th July fitted the first criteria - namely that the damages sought were totally disproportionate. In Monsanto's Statement of Claim it stated that due to GenetiX Snowball's action that the company sought Special Damages which was the actual cost of the plants destroyed - estimated at £150 and the cost of physical care incurred, estimated at £5,000. However, in addition the claim alleged that "the Plaintiff has thereby suffered loss and damage which cannot be quantified by way of special damages". These 'unquantified' damages were for 'unlawful interference with business and commercial interests' and for 'conspiracy'.
Therefore one of the activists, who pulled up one plant, faces potential damages that could be interpreted as thousands, tens of thousands or even millions of pounds. This is a SLAPP'.
genetiX snowball, One World Centre, 6 Mount Street, Manchester. M2 5NS.
Tel: 0161 834 0295 Fax: 0161 834 8187
Email: genetixsnowball@onet.co.uk
Browse: http://www.gn.apc.org/pmhp/gs
Photographs: Nic Cobbing, tel.: 0973 642 103 or
Rob Todd, tel.: 07977 275 563
The genetiX snowball campaignThe aims of the genetiX snowball campaign are: A five year moratorium on the release of genetically modified plants into the environment (except for government sponsored health and safety tests); and the removal by government agency, farmers or the biotechnology companies of all GM plants already existing. The campaign is also calling for a similar moratorium on the import of GM plants or GM plant products and their removal from the supply chain. There have been 16 snowball actions involving more than 200 people since the campaign started. They have included people from age 16 - 85 and from all walks of life including solicitors, teachers, etc. GenetiX snowball is committed to safe, nonviolent, accountable actions. |
September 1998 Monsanto obtained a further broader injunction against the five women
and against press liaison Andrew Wood. This injunction also purported to be against any person
who was a 'member' of genetiX snowball. GenetiX snowball is not a membership organisation and
it was uncertain who was covered by this order. Monsanto asked for a list of the 'members' of
genetiX snowball but the Judge declined to make an order requiring the production of such a
list.
December 1998 The defendants issued an application to 'strike out' Monsanto's claim,
for 'failure to prosecute their claim in a timely manner'. Monsanto responded with an application for
summary judgement against the defendants, dropped their claim for money damages but
continued to seek a permanent injunction against the six defendants.
April 19-20th 1999 At the summary judgement hearing Monsanto argued that there was
no defence to their claim of trespass to goods and that therefore judgement could be given against
the defendants immediately, without the need for a full trial or expert witnesses.
The defendants argued that the danger of the release of GM organisms was such that they were justified in uprooting the plants in the public interest. The defendants argued that the GM crops risked damage to neighbouring farmer's crops by contamination through cross pollination and horizontal gene transfer; risked injury to public health, damage to the environment and that corporate control of GM technology would lead to consolidation of the world's food supply system into the hands of big business at the expense of the poor. The defendants were successful in persuading the Judge that their defence was valid and that the case should proceed to a full trial.
The Judge made a further temporary injunction against the six defendants and against the 'members' of snowball, pending the trial. But he was persuaded, that as the defendants had no control over or even contact with many people who had seen the genetiX snowball 'Handbook for Action' or received information about the campaign, that these people should not be considered to be 'members' of the campaign. He approved a narrower definition of a 'member' of genetiX snowball as a person who actively supports the campaign (i.e. participates in a genetiX snowball crop pulling action) and takes that action on the authority of or on behalf of the campaign.
Monsanto had intended to ask the judge to make an order that the defendants provide a list of the name and address of any person who had received a copy of the Handbook so that they could serve a copy of the injunction order on each of those people and thereby bind them to the terms of the injunction order. More than 50 people including experts, M.P's, representatives of NGOs and many others, concerned that possession of the handbook might lead to legal action by Monsanto, attended the hearing ready to speak out in Court. Monsanto chose to drop this demand immediately before the hearing.
The terms of the current Injunction OrderThe defendant and the members of genetiX snowball are hereby restrained from:
|
Full details on genetiX snowballs' actions, their case, the injunctions and legal submissions can be
found on the genetiX snowball website -
http://www.gn.apc.org/pmhp/gs/
This site is hosted on the Free Range Activism Website