July 2004

Animal Welfare – Human Rights:protecting people from animalrights extremists

1

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Section 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Section 2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Section 3 Animal Rights Extremist Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Section 4 Government Response to Animal Rights Extremists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Section 5 Future Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Annex A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

CONTENTS

Britain has a long and proud record on animal welfare andprotection. It explains why the UK has in place one of the world’stoughest regimes for licensing and controlling animal experiments.No animal procedures are allowed unless it can be shown that theresearch is essential, that there is no realistic alternative to theuse of animals and that any suffering is kept to an absoluteminimum.

It is a system, too, which evidence suggests has widespreadpublic support. While we all want a time when there is no need touse animals in research that time has not yet arrived. Researchusing animals has helped save hundreds of millions of lives. The extraordinary recent advances in genetics which now give usthe chance to treat or prevent a whole range of incurable diseases and conditions should enable us to save hundreds ofmillions more.

British scientists, institutions and firms are in the forefront of thisremarkable research just as they have been world leaders inmedical advances for generations. They continue to make a hugecontribution to human health and well-being as well as creating

thousands of highly-skilled jobs in the UK. Only the United States has a more successful biosciencesector than Britain. But these scientific advances and this economic success story is under threatfrom a tiny minority of animal rights extremists who are behind an illegal campaign of intimidation and violence against individuals and firms involved in this vital work. People have the right, of course, to campaign lawfully to reduce or end the use of animals in scientific research. But they do not have the right to harass, threaten or physically attack those involved in lawful business and research.

The Government, police and courts are stepping up efforts to stamp out this illegal and sometimesviolent conduct. We have improved co-ordination and introduced new measures to make it easier forthe police to stop intimidation and to bring to justice those responsible. As this report makes clear,we shall continue to tighten the law still further and we shall ensure that more resources are madeavailable across Government to tackle this problem, including increasing protection for those workingin this vital field.

We will protect individuals and companies, to enable the UK’s vital bioscience sector to keepdeveloping and to ensure we can all benefit from the medical advances which now lie within our grasp.

Rt Hon Tony Blair MP Rt Hon David Blunkett MPThe Prime Minister The Home Secretary

2

FOREWORD BY THE PRIME MINISTER,RT HON TONY BLAIR MPAND THE HOME SECRETARY,THE RT HON DAVID BLUNKETT MP

3

1. The purpose of this paper is to set out theGovernment’s strategy for countering animalrights extremism. Our message is clear:

• It remains necessary to carry out experiments under carefully controlled conditions on animals;

• Extremist behaviour is despicable and willnot be tolerated;

• The Government is committed to protecting those who work in the bioscience sector, whether directly or in the supply chain, and will examine all thatcan be done to protect those engaged in lawful research.

2. We live longer and more healthily than everbefore because of the enormous advances intreating and preventing disease and illness. The progress in medical science over the lastcentury has allowed us to eradicate mass killerslike smallpox, to treat once fatal diseases andto repair incurable conditions such as heartcomplaints. Scientific advances have alsohelped ensure the drugs and chemicals we useare more effective and safer both for ourselvesand the environment. We should be proud thatmany of these advances, which have saved andtransformed the lives of millions of peopleacross the world, rests on the work of Britishscientists, institutions and bioscience firms whomake a huge contribution to our economy andprosperity. Our lifespan would be shorter, ourhealth worse and our environment and countrypoorer without this science and the scientistswho carry it out.

3. A great deal of this science depends uponanimal experiments. Opportunities are beginningto emerge which use tissue cell cultures,chemical processes and computer modelling todo developmental and basic research as well assafety testing. The Government is taking actionto develop these alternatives as fast aspossible. However, if cutting edge life-saving

research is to continue, it will be necessary forthe foreseeable future to continue to useanimals.

4. But this research in Britain can now only takeplace under the strictest regulations to ensure itis absolutely necessary to use animals – andunder the toughest conditions to ensure anysuffering is reduced to an absolute minimum.Surveys suggest there is overwhelming publicsupport for this approach which has been theapproach of successive Governments.

5. The Government recognises, however, thatthere are many people with concerns about the use of animals in scientific procedures. The Government supports the right of everyoneto express those views and to campaign legally to persuade people to change their mind and the law.

6. Our country has a proud record on animalwelfare and protection, thanks in part to theefforts of millions of people who supportlegitimate and well-respected groups, like theRSPCA, who campaign to increase protection fordomestic animals and wildlife, and for thereplacement of animal experiments, whereverpossible. Other organisations, such as the Fundfor the Replacement of Animals in MedicalExperiments (FRAME) do valuable work activelyseeking alternatives to animal tests. At the sametime many, of course, understand the need forcontinued animal experimentation provided thereare proper controls and safeguards. Others wantto see a complete ban.

7. But a tiny group of extremists are usingillegal and violent methods to try to stop animalexperiments. They are not trying to change thelaw but to frighten individuals, their families andfriends, institutions and companies. Theircampaigns of intimidation, harassment andviolence against individuals and law-abidingbusinesses are totally unacceptable. The policeand courts are taking this illegal activityextremely seriously and we have given them new

Section 1 INTRODUCTION

powers to tackle it. But much more needs to bedone.

8. The Government’s strategy to tackle animalrights extremism is simple: it is to stop theextremists. We are doing this by:

• Launching a concerted drive to catch those involved and bringing the full range of existing laws to bear on their activity;

• Working with the police, CPS and courts on the most effective approach, to keep performance under review and to identify new initiatives;

• Raising awareness of the methods of extremists among all the criminal justice agencies and to ensure the most effectiveco-ordinated response to extremism;

• Ensuring that the Courts are aware that illegal acts of violence and intimidation arecommitted as part of a concerted campaign of extremism which could be aggravating factors which attract higher sentences on conviction;

• Introducing further legislative changes to catch the activities of extremists, includingmaking it illegal to protest outside people’s homes where the effect is to intimidate or cause distress.

4

Medical benefits of animal research tohumans and animals

9. Most of the major medical advances overthe last century have come about throughanimal research, and all new medicines areapproved on the basis that their efficacy, safetyand quality have been demonstrated by evidenceincluding animal test data. Examples of healthcare improvements arising to some degree outof animal work include anaesthetics, vaccines,antibiotics, replacement heart valves, bloodtransfusions, kidney dialysis, and surgicalprocedures such as organ transplants.

10. These advances are not just in the past.Recent improved treatments for heart disease,breast and prostate cancers, and new drugs forasthma and HIV/Aids have all been developedfollowing essential research involving animals.And current animal research – especially inareas such as genomics and stem cells – holdshuge promise for treating and preventing awhole range of serious and complex conditions.

11. These include muscular dystrophy, cysticfibrosis, reproductive and fertility disorders,cancer, and Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’sdiseases. Despite advanced research methodsnot dependent on the use of animals, there arestill many areas where animal research remainscrucial to further progress. If we are to make thebest use of the extraordinary advances ofscience to improve human health and reducepain and suffering, then tightly controlledresearch involving animals will be necessary.

12. The main treatments for cancer today usesurgery with radiotherapy and chemotherapydrugs to kill cancer cells. Animal testing hasplayed a vital role in developing thesetreatments. Some of the serious and veryunpleasant side effects of cancer treatmenthave been prevented by the development of newdrugs which required the use of animal testing.Without the use of animals, the treatments nowbeing used would not be available and progress

towards our understanding of cancer and thedevelopment of new treatments and possiblycures would be very severely affected.

13. Alzheimer’s disease affects one person in10 over the age of 65 and almost half thoseover the age of 85. The abnormalities ofAlzheimer’s disease are shown in primates andin certain strains of mice. Animal studies provideopportunities for understanding how Alzheimer’saffects the brain and for studying potential newtreatments. In short, we will need animalresearch if we are ever to discover a cure forAlzheimer’s.

14. Research involving animals also benefitsanimals themselves. Currently, experimentalresearch and drug testing on animals is neededto advance both human and veterinary medicine,the latter providing new treatments for bothlivestock and companion animals. Animals areused in research into animal welfare and otherhealth issues such as the potential developmentof vaccines against bovine TB that could protectwild populations of badgers (that may act ascarriers) as an alternative to culling. Animalwelfare research aimed, for example, atimproving husbandry and housing of livestockinevitably involves research with animals if it isto be animal-centred rather than based onsubjective human ideas.

Use of animals in scientific procedures – regulation

15. Britain, of course, already has what isregarded as the most tightly controlled regimegoverning animals experiments in the world.Before a licence is granted under the Animals(Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, the lawrequires proof that:

• the likely benefits of the research have been weighed against the likely adverse effects on the animals concerned

• that there are no alternatives which either

5

Section 2 BACKGROUND

6

Replace animal use entirely, Reducethe number of animals needed, or Refine the procedures to minimise suffering (known as “the 3Rs”).

16. All applications for project licences must firstpass through ethical review processes at theestablishments concerned – only thoseconsidered justified at that stage can goforward. Applications received by the HomeOffice are then subject to rigorous assessmentby members of the Animals (ScientificProcedures) Inspectorate, all of whom aremedical or veterinary experts. The Inspectoratehas to be satisfied that all the criteria in the1986 Act have been met before recommendingthe grant of licences. Certain more difficult orcontentious types of applications are alsoreferred for advice to the Animal ProceduresCommittee, and sometimes to expert externalassessors, before licensing decisions are taken.Licensed programmes of work have to be keptunder review, to ensure that any animal sufferingcontinues to be minimised, and that satisfactorystandards of animal care are maintained.Projects are closely monitored by theInspectorate for compliance purposes – any non-compliance is acted upon and can result inrevocation of licences.

17. Non-human primates are among the speciesgiven special protection by the 1986 Act andcan only be used where animals of no otherspecies are suitable. They are used forregulatory testing to help ensure the safety ofmedicines, and for important areas offundamental research into conditions such asParkinson’s disease, visual impairment, stroke,diabetes, disorders of reproduction and vaccine development.

18. It is regrettable that the use of primates inscientific procedures remains necessary. Butwhile the benefits to humans, animals or theenvironment outweigh the costs to the animalsinvolved, and until there are suitable alternativesavailable, there is no immediate prospect of anend to this use. It should be stressed that non-human primates were used in just 0.14% of the total number of scientific proceduresconducted in 2002.

Use of animals in scientific procedures – openness

19. The Government believes that there is aneed for more open and better informed debateabout the use of animals in scientific procedures.To that end, the Home Office is pressing aheadwith plans to publish, without disclosingapplicants’ names, information about projectslicensed under the Animals (ScientificProcedures) Act 1986 as part of its publicationscheme under the Freedom of Information Act.This is being taken forward in consultation withthe scientific community about the revision andstreamlining of the project licence applicationprocess. Licence applicants will be expected toprovide the information in an abridged form forposting onto the Home Office website. Thesepublication arrangements are to be introduced in autumn 2004.

20. Separately, in the context of ourcommitment to freedom of information, theGovernment has reviewed section 24 of the1986 Act – the so-called confidentiality clause –which prohibits the disclosure by Home OfficeMinisters and officials of confidential informationrelating to the use of animals in scientificprocedures. Many in the scientific community,support other means of progressing opennessand transparency about the use of animals inscientific research, but were very concernedabout the potential impact of repealing section24. In the circumstances, we have decided toretain section 24 for the time being and to lookat it again in two years time.

Trends in animal use

21. The number of animal procedures startedeach year has reduced by 22% since 1987,continuing a downward trend first seen in the1970s. In the commercial sector animal use hasalmost halved over the same period, eventhough investment in research and developmenthas increased significantly. The use of animalsis costly and time consuming and industryinvests many millions of pounds in thedevelopment of alternatives. Recently thedownward trend in animal use has flattened outand currently the number of procedures startedeach year fluctuates around 2.6 to 2.7 million.

22. The Government believes that currentdevelopments in science are providing

7

significantly more opportunities to do work onthe replacement of animal use, the refinementof the procedures involved to minimise sufferingand the reduction of the number of animalsused (the 3Rs). The Government recentlyannounced that it is establishing a NationalCentre for the Replacement, Refinement andReduction of Animals in Research, which willreport to the Office of Science and Technologythrough a new Board chaired by Lord Turnberg.Board members are currently being appointed –all four Stakeholder Groups (Research Groups,Animal Welfare Groups, Government and Industry)will be represented and it is hoped they will holdtheir first meeting in September. The Centre forBest Practice for Animals in Research (CBPAR)established by the Medical Research Council willform the core of the new centre. Initial Governmentfunding of £660,000 has been provided,doubling the amount previously available withfurther increases expected in the future.

23. The new national centre will:

• develop a UK strategy for the implementation of the 3Rs;

• fund high quality research that advances the 3Rs;

• promote a co-ordinated approach to 3Rs research;

• provide advice on the 3Rs and animal welfare to the scientific community; support the UK scientific community’s commitment to best practice in all aspects of laboratory animal science and welfare; and

• work with regulators on the acceptance ofalternative methods for regulatory toxicology.

24. The Government already has a good recordin the promotion of replacement tests. Forexample, we played a leading part in the deletionof the OECD Guideline 401 LD50 Test – aparticularly unpleasant toxicity test using mice.We also pressed hard for its replacement with a more humane alternative, and for thedevelopment and promotion of the local lymphnode assay using mice – a more humanereplacement for a Guinea pig test for skinsensitisation.

25. The Government also secured a voluntaryban on testing cosmetic finished products andingredients on animals in the UK. We did thisbecause we believed that there was inadequatejustification for using animals given the benefitsof these products and the alternative testsavailable. We are also committed to putting anend to testing cosmetics on animals acrossEurope and have led the way and worked hardfor many years to achieve this. The Governmentstrongly supports the 7th Amendment to the EUCosmetics Directive, which will introduce atesting ban in the European Union and willextend across Europe what has been almostsolely a UK ban.

Public attitudes to use of animals inscientific procedures

26. Most people in the United Kingdom – 90% ina recent MORI survey – believe the use ofanimals for medical research is acceptable solong as it is done without causing unnecessarysuffering to the animals concerned and is strictlyregulated. When questioned about the regulatoryregime that they would like to see for animalresearch, most people described the regime thatthe UK already has in place, even though theyare not aware that we do have such a system.Very few people are actually aware that theGovernment regulates the use of animals inscientific procedures at all.

27. The Government is determined that thegeneral public have access to objective,accurate information on the benefits of medicalresearch, the reasons why it is necessary to useanimals where no other way of carrying outresearch is possible and that in the UK, the useof animals in scientific procedures is very strictlyregulated.

28. This is an important debate which must notbe hijacked by a small number of extremists. To address the lack of information and publicawareness of the regulation of animals inscientific procedures, the Government hasimplemented a communications strategy toprovide objective and accurate information aboutthese issues. Ministers from the Home Office,Department of Health and Department of Tradeand Industry have set out the regulatory regimeand the benefits of medical research usinganimals in a series of articles in scientific andParliamentary journals. The Government also

8

takes every opportunity to give accurateinformation on animals in scientific proceduresthrough seminars and addresses to seniorfigures in industry, the City and Parliament.

29. The bioscience sector – industry, academicsand medical charities, are also working topresent the facts on the use of animals inscientific procedures and dispel mythsperpetuated by animal rights extremists. TheGovernment welcomes and supports the work ofthe Coalition for Medical Progress, which ispresenting data from scientists engaged inbiomedical research to explain how animals helpresearch into the causes of disease and developnew treatments.

Economic contribution of thebioscience sector

30. Bioscience has made an enormouscontribution to improving our health and qualityof life. But it also makes a massive contributionto our economy and prosperity. The UKbioscience industry is the second biggest in theworld, employing directly over 80,000 andindirectly an estimated 250,000 people. We arethe world’s largest exporter of pharmaceuticals –a trade worth nearly £12 billion last year.

31. We have an outstanding record in researchwith only the United States having discoveredand developed more best-selling drugs. This isbased on the excellence of our universitieswhere 65% of all medical research is carried out.A great deal of this is supported from publicfunds but pharmaceutical companies are alsoinvesting over £3.5 billion annually in the UK inresearch and development.

32. Biotechnology is an increasingly importantsector both in terms of its impact on our livesand its economic contribution to the economy.There are already over 480 dedicatedbiotechnology businesses with revenues of over£4 billion in 2002.

33. To support research and development in thebioscience sector, the UK has a number ofcontract research organisations (CROs) that areamong the best in the world. CROs employaround 5,000 people in the UK, with revenues ofover £100 million annually. They offer advancetechnologies for development of innovativepharmaceutical products, regulatory testing and

toxicological and registration services for newchemicals globally.

34. Our record of achievement in science, with44 Nobel laureates in the last 50 years, ourworld-class institutions, and strong Governmentsupport means bioscience researchers andcompanies increasingly see the UK as theirbase. The Government is justifiably proud bothof the scientific advances made in Britain andalso that our country is seen as one of the bestplaces in the world for bioscience.

35. But both home-grown and foreign firms havewarned that animal right extremism is casting ashadow over this, by making their work moredifficult and could affect investment decisions inthe future. We recognise this and aredetermined to step up our efforts to counter thisillegal activity.

9

36. Animal rights extremists have long beenactive in the UK. In the 1980s, a number ofmedical researchers were the subject ofintimidation and harassment which included notjust demonstrations and abusive letters but attheir worst, letter and car bomb campaigns.Several of the most prominent extremists werejailed for lengthy periods.

37. In the mid 1990s, animal rights extremistsextended their campaign to target laboratoryanimal breeders and suppliers who were typicallysmall, independent companies. In 1999, theytargeted Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) withthe stated aim of forcing HLS into closure.Having failed in its attempt to frighten thecompany’s directors and employees into givingup, the extremists then turned their attention tosecondary and tertiary targets such as HLS’sshareholders, customers and suppliers.

38. Supplier companies may include banks,building companies, fuel suppliers and evencompanies which supply laundry services andtaxi services. This change in tactics mean thatanimal rights extremists are now targetingpeople who are not directly involved in researchusing animals and are located throughout theUK. This provides a challenge for police forceswho have not dealt with extremist activity in theirarea in the past.

39. Harassment and intimidation by animalrights extremists is directed not just at thedirector or employees of a particular company,but also the family and friends of the individual.In some cases, individuals have been forced toabandon social activities or resign from clubs asa result of those places becoming the focus oftargeting by extremists.

40. The animal rights movement consists of anumber of co-ordinated campaigns, somepeaceful and some unlawful against a widerange of selected targets.

41. Although many animal rights supporters will

only engage in peaceful protest, a small core of extremists are engaged in researching andidentifying targets, organising and co-ordinatingthe campaigns and engaging in criminal actionto achieve their objectives.

42. This criminal action ranges from threateningmail, aggravated trespass, email, faxes andphone calls, to hoax explosive packages,serious assaults and, in the extreme, the use ofexplosive devices against property.

43. The animal rights extremists, are organisedin a quasi-terrorist cellular structure across thecountry. They appear to be well briefed onforensic and legal issues, which makes itdifficult for the police to obtain evidence thatwould lead to convictions. Despite this, thepolice have conducted some excellentinvestigations that have led to convictions andsignificant sentences in court.

44. The animal rights extremists are prepared totravel widely to commit offences and are drivenby an ideology which threatens to undermineeconomic and academic research in the UnitedKingdom.

45. An animal rights extremist campaign typicallyinvolves some or all of the following acts:

• publication of names, addresses, phone numbers of targeted company’s employees on an extremist website, with the accompanying innuendo;

• threatening letters & harassing telephone calls to employees at home;

• floods of emails, faxes, telephone calls from extremists trying to disrupt the companies’ business;

• anonymous letters sent to the neighboursof targeted directors making false allegations that the individual is a paedophile;

Section 3 ANIMAL RIGHTS EXTREMIST ACTIVITY

• packages sent to homes of targets containing offensive material eg used toilet paper, razor blades;

• ordering goods and services in the name of the victim without their consent;

• late night “home visits” which involve extremists in masks vandalising cars, smashing windows and spraying graffiti;

• Office invasions to disrupt the company, often involving theft of papers;

• intimidatory protests both at company premises and homes of employees;

• hoax improvised explosive devices;

• assaults on personnel.

46. These activities are covered by a range ofcriminal offences, for example, sendingthreatening letters and packages or makinggrossly offensive telephone calls is an offenceunder section 1 of the Malicious CommunicationsAct 1988 if done with intent to cause distress or anxiety.

47. Invading an office to disrupt a company’sbusiness is covered by the offence of aggravatedtrespass under section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 which theGovernment amended earlier this year to extendto buildings.

48. Vandalising cars, smashing windows andgraffiti are all covered by section 1 of the CriminalDamage Act 1971. In addition the Governmentrecently amended the stop and search powersso that the police can search for articles thatcould be used to commit criminal damage.

49. Where people are acting together and as aresult of an agreement to commit a criminaloffence this can be charged as a criminalconspiracy to commit the offences.

50. Ordering goods and services in the name ofa third party is covered by the offences ofobtaining goods and services by deception under the Theft Acts 1968 and 1978.

51. Many of the acts of harassment carried outby animal rights extremists could also be

charged as offences under the Protection fromHarassment Act 1997. It is an offence undersection 2 for a person to pursue a course ofconduct which amounts to harassment ofanother and which he knows or ought to knowamounts to harassment of the other. A personfound guilty of this offence can also be madethe subject of a restraining order to protect aperson from conduct which amounts toharassment.

52. Some of the activities of animal rightsextremists are often considered to be acts ofterrorism. During the passage of the TerrorismAct, which came into effect on 19 February2001, it was made clear that the powers in theAct would cover all forms of terrorism, includingserious violent acts carried out by animal rightsextremists, by widening the definition of terrorism.

53. There are a range of provisions in the Actwhich are designed to target those who engagein serious violence, endanger life or create aserious risk to the health and safety of the publicfor the purpose of advancing a political, religiousor ideological cause. Animal rights extremistsengaged in these activities should not, therefore,be surprised to find themselves treated asterrorists.

54. Often a campaign of harassment starts witha polite phone call asking the company to stopsupplying the research company, explaining thatthey will be sent literature about what happensat the research company and that after they havereceived the literature they should send thecampaign group a letter informing them that theyhave cut their ties with the research company.

55. If animal rights extremists do not get theresponse they want they may send a follow-upletter which typically says:

“YOUR DAYS ARE NUMBERED, ANIMAL ABUSERS.”

56. In one case, an elderly householderemployed as a cleaner for a supplier company,had her house attacked. In the early hours ofthe morning, two ground floor windows and onefirst floor window were smashed by objectsthrown from outside. The damage was caused tothe ground floor windows by a piece of concreteand half a house brick. The first floor bedroom

10

window was broken by a rock. The rock wasthrown through her bedroom window with suchforce that it travelled across her bedroom and hita wall causing a large impact mark. The rockthen bounced off the wall and landed on a pillowadjacent to the householder narrowly missing her.

57. Animal rights extremists like to brag aboutcriminal acts committed by supporters andpublish them on websites in order to frightentheir victims. The material published on thesesites is propaganda. Examples of the sort ofthreats posted on websites include:

“We visited the home of the head of x company,and smashed his windows last week. We willcarry on targeting x company in whatever way wesee fit until they sever their links with y. Nopeace for evil animal abusers, no peace formurderers. This action was carried out inmemory of the thousands of animals murderedat y by x company.”

58. The Government would strongly urge animallovers to think twice about giving money toanimal rights extremists. Such well-intentioneddonations are unlikely to help animals, but arefar more likely to be funding criminal activity.Sometimes well meaning people give money tostalls in High Streets and shopping centreswithout knowing exactly what that money will beused for. The Government urges people to askhow their donation will be used as the stallsmay not be licensed.

11

12

59. Animal rights extremists are highlyorganised and fully prepared to resort to a widerange of illegal tactics to intimidate and harasspeople engaged in lawful activity. This goes farbeyond the legitimate boundaries of peacefulprotest and freedom of expression. To providean effective response, our law enforcement andcriminal justice system needs to be every bit asconcerted and determined in response. TheGovernment is therefore following a clearstrategy to crack down on this activity. We shallsystematically enforce the law, with the policeand criminal justice system working together totarget extremism and extremists. We shallensure that campaigns of intimidation andviolence for extremist ends are presented to thecourts as aggravating factors when sentencingthose convicted of existing offences. We shallintroduce a number of new offences to fill gapsin the law, including making it an offence toprotest outside a person’s home.

Current legislation

60. The police have a wide range of powersavailable to them under existing criminal law andpublic order legislation to deal with offencescommitted by animal rights extremists. It is vitalthat they have the right powers to do the jobwhich is why the Government keeps the lawunder review to identify whether there are gapsin the legislation. A list of the main powersavailable to the police is set out in Annex A.

61. In response to the campaign againstHuntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) the Governmentmade several changes to strengthen the law todeal with extremists in the Criminal Justice andPolice Act 2001. In particular, Section 42 of thatAct gave the police a new power to directprotestors away from homes, where suchprotests may cause harassment, alarm ordistress. An offence is only committed where aprotestor fails to comply with the direction.

62. More recently, the Government has madefurther changes to strengthen police powers to

tackle intimidatory protests. The definition ofpublic assembly in section 16 of the PublicOrder Act 1986, was amended from anassembly consisting of 20 or more persons to 2or more persons. The offence of aggravatedtrespass in section 68 of the Criminal Justiceand Public Order Act 1994 was extended tocover trespass in buildings. Both changes cameinto effect on 20th January 2004.

Prosecutions

63. These changes close loopholes in the lawwhich were being exploited by animal rightsprotestors. For example, protestors commonlyensured they demonstrated in numbers of 19 orless so that the police would not be able toimpose conditions on them under section 14 ofthe Public Order Act 1986. The change enablesthe police to impose conditions, in limitedcircumstances, on smaller groups who conductintimidatory protests. The extension of the offence of aggravated trespass alsoprovides the police with additional powers todeal with protestors who occupy or invadebuildings.

64. The new powers are being used effectivelyby police forces. From January to April 2004there have been 24 arrests for breaches ofSection 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 and 11arrests for the amended offence of aggravatedtrespass in buildings. In total, in the first 6months of 2004 there were 140 animal rightsactivists either arrested or reported comparedwith only 34 over the same period in 2003.Recent months have seen the conviction of 21activists for a range of offences includingaggravated trespass, harassment, commonassault, assault on police and criminal damage.Other cases are awaiting trial.

65. Preventative orders such as Anti SocialBehaviour Orders (ASBOs) are another effectivemeasure to prevent further criminal activity thatcan have such a corrosive effect on a victim’squality of life. Recent changes in legislation

Section 4 GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO ANIMAL RIGHTSEXTREMISTS

mean that courts can now impose an ASBO uponconvicting an offender for any criminal offenceand CPS prosecutors have the power to ask foran ASBO on conviction. Breach of an ASBO isitself a serious criminal offence.

66. The Police are working with the CPS on theuse of Anti Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) inrespect of animal rights extremists. An animalrights activist who was recently convicted for apublic order offence in connection withprotesting at Huntingdon Life Sciences has beenmade the subject of an ASBO on convictionwhich prevents him from going within a mile ofHuntingdon Life Sciences for 3 years. Anotheractivist who was recently convicted ofaggravated trespass after entering twoCambridgeshire businesses connected with ananimal research facility, has been made thesubject of an ASBO which bans her from enteringCambridgeshire or contacting anyone associatedto research company Huntingdon Life Sciencesfor 3 years.

67. A number of targeted companies haveobtained High Court injunctions under theProtection from Harassment Act 1997 whichrestrain named animal rights activists fromharassing employees of companies and theirfamilies. The injunctions have been successfulin controlling overt protests at companypremises and outside homes. It is importantthat civil remedies are pursued and used to theirfull effect in addition to the criminal law.

68. In order to ensure a broad consistency ofapproach nationally and raise levels ofawareness, there is a National Forum on policingand prosecution of animal rights cases chairedby the Attorney General.

69. The National Forum brings togetherpractitioners from across the criminal justicesystem. This group is now focusing on deliveryof the actions necessary to provide the bestpossible protection to the targets of extremistactivity. Departments are now represented atMinisterial level on this group.

70. It is important that the judiciary are fullyaware of the aggravating nature of animal rightsextremist activity and understand its impact onvictims. The Forum is developing guidance ontaking witness impact statements in animalrights extremist cases to maximise the prospects

of obtaining appropriate disposals and orderssuch as ASBOs. A protocol is being developedfor arresting officers and prosecutors onspeedily obtaining information about offenderswho commit crimes across the country. Thecourts service are educating magistrates andthe courts about the methods and tactics of animal rights extremists via guidance andbest practice material so that the judiciary areaware of the aggravating nature of this activitywhen they are considering such cases. We arealso seeking advice from the SentencingGuidelines Council on whether there are othersentencing solutions to offences involvinganimal rights extremists.

Police

71. There is a considerable amount of workgoing on within local police forces and theNational Crime Squad to tackle animal rightsextremism and it is vital that Senior Officersensure that a strong focus is maintained. Thepolice are responding proactively and robustly tocriminal acts committed by extremists.

72. In March 2004, the Association of ChiefPolice Officers formed the National ExtremismTactical Co-ordinating Unit (NETCU) with HomeOffice funding. The Unit is a small team, led byan experienced police officer. The purpose of thenew Unit is to provide tactical advice andguidance to police forces dealing with extremismand to act as a liaison point for industry.

73. The Police Service have linked a series ofcrime investigations into offences against anumber of companies which involves severalforces and the Crown Prosecution Service. Thiswork is being co-ordinated by a single seniorinvestigating officer and the CPS are contributingto this by a dedicated lawyer with expertise inthis area to work with the police.

74. In addition an Assistant Chief Constable hasbeen appointed to be responsible for theoperational co-ordination of investigations and todevelop a new national framework for tacklingextremism. This new policing strategy andnational framework pulls together the actionwhich the police together with criminal justiceagencies such as CPS are taking to tackle thisproblem. In particular, the police will identifybest practice and define national standards inall areas of prevention, initial response and

13

14

investigations into criminal activity byextremists.

75. Despite the progress being made theGovernment believes that further steps areneeded to ensure that individuals do not sufferharm or hardship and legitimate businessactivity is not disrupted.

New Offences

76. We intend to give police new powers totackle protests outside homes more effectivelyand to help stop the harassment of employeesof companies.

77. Protests outside homes are particularlydistressing for those targeted and their families.While police are making effective use of existingpowers to direct protestors away from a homewhere they may cause harassment, alarm ordistress to the resident, one of the operationaldifficulties with the current provision is that itdoes not cover the situation where a complaintis made about the presence of protestorsoutside a person’s home, but the protestorsdisappear before the police arrive or the policeare not able to give a direction as they do nothave the ability to enforce it at the scene.

78. We are therefore proposing to make it anoffence to protest outside homes in such a waythat causes harassment alarm or distress toresidents. The proposal would not affect theright to picket peacefully at a work place.

79. The new offence would be arrestable so thatthe police will be able to make an arrest wherethey have reasonable grounds for suspecting theoffence has taken place and have reasonablegrounds for suspecting the protestor is guilty ofthe offence. This means that the police will beable to deal with protestors after the eventwhich will address the difficulties of having toenforce a direction at the scene of the protest.

80. The new offence is in addition to the existingdirection power under section 42 of the CriminalJustice and Police Act 2001. However, we arealso proposing to amend section 42 to make itan offence for a person subject to a direction toreturn to the vicinity of the premises within 3months for the purposes of representing to orpersuading the resident or another that he shouldnot do something he is entitled to do or that heshould do something he is not obliged to do.

One of the concerns raised by the police andvictims is that the same protestors will return toconduct intimidatory protests at targeted homeson a regular basis.

81. The third change is an amendment to theProtection from Harassment Act 1997. Section2 makes it a criminal offence for a person topursue a course of conduct which amounts toharassment of another and which that personknows amounts to harassment of the other.To secure a conviction it needs to be proven thatthere is a course of conduct in which a personharassed another. The courts have applied astrict interpretation of the word “another” whichhas confined the application of this provision toharassment of specific individuals and thusemployees of a company do not presentlybenefit from this provision when they have notpreviously themselves been harassed, eventhough a fellow employee has been.

82. In order to address this problem, we areproposing to extend the Act to cover harassmentof two or more people who are connected (e.g.employees of the same company) even if eachindividual is harassed on only one occasion.

83. These legislative proposals are included inthe consultation paper “Policing: ModernisingPolice Powers to Meet Community Needs” whichwill be published shortly. That paper sets outareas of government policy on police powers forpotential inclusion in a future legislativeprogramme.

84. In addition, in March the Governmentpublished proposals for defeating organisedcrime in the White Paper: ‘One Step Ahead’. The White Paper set out a number of measuresfor making more concerted use of existingpowers as well as outlining a number of proposednew powers for disrupting the activities oforganised criminal gangs. It will be open to lawenforcement agencies to utilise a number ofthese measures in the pursuit of animal rightsextremists.

15

Section 5 FUTURE ACTION

Further Action

85. The Government is grateful to a number ofindustry bodies for sharing their draft Bill whichseeks to consolidate the law to deal with thosewho harass, intimidate or commit acts ofviolence against persons involved in or connectedwith the use of animals in scientific procedures.

86. The Government has considered carefullythe arguments put forward by industry for asingle piece of legislation to deal with thecriminal acts of animal rights extremists. We have not closed the door on this but it wouldnot be sensible to try to seek a separate Billwhich because of pressures of Parliamentarytime could not be taken this year. We haveidentified alternative avenues to allow us toamend existing legislation as part of thelegislative programme on organised crime andpolice reform. Our proposals to create a newoffence of protesting outside homes andstrengthen the Protection from Harassment Actto provide protection for employees of targetedcompanies are ones which industry themselveshave identified as important in closing loopholesin the current law.

87. We are aware that the tactics being used byanimal rights extremists are being copied byother extremists and we are determined to dealwith intimidation and harassment whatever thecause.

88. We have also considered the possibility ofmaking it an offence to cause economic damageto the suppliers of firms or research groupsengaged in the legitimate and licensed use ofanimals. This is a complex area which is difficultto define. We shall however give furtherconsideration to this over the next few months.In the end it is robust enforcement as much asnew legislation which will help us tackle thisserious problem.

89. The Government is well aware that animalrights extremists use the internet to intimidateor incite others to commit violence. All InternetService Providers in the UK will readily removeany illegal material on websites which they hostwhen notified of its presence by law enforcementor another appropriate body. In addition serviceproviders are prepared to remove legal materialwhere it breaches an acceptable use policy theyhave with their customer. Whilst such policies

vary in nature, they can include material deemedto cause concern or needless anxiety to others.We will co-ordinate legislation, policy and actionby industry, the police, CPS and others to dealeffectively with problems associated with thehosting of material on animal extremist websites,in particular the hosting of personal details ofindividuals and companies at risk of beingtargeted by extremists. Law enforcement willseek to identify individuals responsible for thewriting and posting of material on sites where itis associated with an offence, and take actionincluding where appropriate criminal prosecutions.

90. The Home Office is currently co-ordinating aGovernment e-crime strategy to be publishedlater this year. One chapter of this strategy willlook at issues raised by the hosting of internetcontent, and seek to identify and suggestremedies for any identified weaknesses indomestic legislation, policy or practice, and howwe can seek to influence such issues whereproblem sites are located in other countries.

Working with victims

91. The Government is working with victims todevelop responses to intimidation andharassment of any organisation or individual thatanimal rights extremists believe is associatedwith biomedical research. Ministers have metthe financial sector, trades unions, tradeassociations and individual victims, to underlinethe Government’s commitment to protectingpersons carrying out legitimate business in theUK. It is of concern to everyone that researchand business activities should not be dictatedby intimidation and harassment.

92. We are determined to tackle harassment byextremists who order goods or services in thename of third parties with the intention ofcausing distress and nuisance. Some of theseactivities are already illegal; for example causingobscene or pornographic material to be sentthrough the post. Others may fall within existinglegislation of theft or obtaining goods bydeception. We shall carry out a review of suchlegislation to determine the most effective way of stopping harassment through suchmeans. We will also discuss with business how it can help to control the use of mail order offers or similar “distance selling”opportunities to prevent extremists fromharassing individuals.

16

93. We are also looking further at how to protectshareholders from targeting by animal rightsextremists. Under UK company law registeredcompanies are required to keep a register oftheir shareholders. The register is made publiclyavailable not only so that the company cancontact its members (shareholders) but also sothat shareholders may contact each other. Thiscould be, for example, to solicit support for aresolution to be put at a meeting of the companyor for other legitimate purposes. But it is not alegal requirement that shareholders shouldprovide their home address – the address on thepublic record may be a service address providedit is a physical address from which ashareholder may collect mail. Similarly,shareholders may use a nominee shareholder,for example a bank or solicitor, instead ofholding shares directly.

94. However, the Government believes thatmany shareholders are unaware that there is nolegal requirement to provide their home addressand we will be working with the financialinstitutions to increase awareness amongstinvestors of the legal requirements.

95. Those targeted can provide valuableassistance to help the police and theGovernment tackle extremism – and only byworking together will the Government, thebioscience and pharmaceutical industries, theirsuppliers and individuals be able to minimisethe threat of intimidation and harassment.

96. There are a number of positive actions thatcan be taken to help both Government andvictims. For example, a major trade associationrepresenting pension fund managers has statedthat intimidation of investors is unacceptableand that shareholders should not give way topressure from single issue groups againstinvestment in particular companies. By statingclearly that industry will not allow extremists todictate with whom anyone can do business,activists would be deprived of the encouragementto further intimidation and harassment thatwould have little or no effect on the businessdecisions of industry.

97. It is important that the police and theGovernment are aware of any threats or risks to targets so that appropriate advice andassistance can be given. The Governmentencourages anyone who is at risk to:

• discuss with the appropriate authorities any concerns about threats of intimidationand harassment, or responses to such threats at the earliest opportunity. This may be where a company fears that it could be at risk, even before any threats against it have been made

• provide information that might help more effective policing of criminal activities, including evidence to prosecute offenders

• work with the police to take precautions tominimise the risk of intimidation and harassment of employees and the risk of commercially confidential information being disclosed to unauthorised persons.

CONCLUSION

98. The Government applauds those companiesand individuals who have stood firm in the faceof continual intimidation from extremists. Thissituation is unacceptable for those whose dailylives are being blighted by extremists and theGovernment is determined not to allowextremists to dictate to businesses what theycan and cannot do.

99. Since the UK has one of the toughestregulatory regimes for animal testing theGovernment is determined to ensure thatlegitimate legal research – which has thepotential to alleviate human suffering and findcures for diseases which we never thoughtpossible – should be allowed to continue without the threat of intimidation or violence. If extremists commit criminal acts againstindividuals or companies they can expect the fullforce of the law to be used against them.

17

Public Order Act 1986

The Act contains a range of offences aimed atpreventing harassment, alarm or distress toindividuals, ranging from riot to relatively low levelharassment. The behaviour of offender must bethreatening, abusive or insulting: so it is unlikelyto catch behaviour which is non-threatening butmight be seen by some as amounting tointimidation. There is likely to be a range ofinterpretation by the police on when behaviourcrosses the threshold.

Section 4 contains the offence of usingthreatening, abusive or insulting words orbehaviour or displaying threatening, abusive orinsulting writing or signs. The behaviour must bedirected to a person with intent either to causehim to believe immediate unlawful violence willbe used; or to provoke such violence; or tocause him to believe such violence will be used.

Section 4A contains the offence of usingthreatening, abusive or insulting words orbehaviour or displaying threatening, abusive orinsulting writing or signs. The person mustintend to cause harassment, alarm or distressand must actually do so. It is a defence for theaccused to show his conduct was reasonable.

Section 5 makes it an offence to use or displaysuch words or behaviour within the hearing orsight of a person likely to be caused harassment,alarm or distress. The conduct need not bedirected against a particular person but theaccused must intend his words or behaviour tobe threatening, abusive or insulting or be awarethat they may be. It is a defence to show thatthere was no reason to believe there was anyonewithin sight or hearing likely to be causedharassment, alarm or distress. It is also adefence if the accused can show his conductwas reasonable.

Section 14 allows for a Chief Officer to imposeconditions on a public assembly if he reasonablybelieves that it may result in serious public

disorder, serious damage to property or seriousdisruption to the life of the community.Conditions may also be imposed if the samereasonable belief is present that the purpose ofthe organisers of the assembly is to intimidateothers with a view to compelling them to do ornot do an act they have a right to do.

Conditions include:

• the place where the assembly may be held, eg across the road from the target companies premises rather than directly outside the main doors;

• its maximum duration;

• the maximum number of persons who mayconstitute it.

The definition of “a public assembly” wasamended by the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003(with effect from 20th January 2004) from “agathering of 20 or more people” to “a gatheringof 2 or more people” in the open air. It allowsthe Chief Officer to impose those conditions hebelieves necessary to prevent disorder,disruption or intimidation. It is an offence toknowingly organise, or take part in an assemblyknowingly in contravention of a condition. Theoffences carry a statutory power of arrest.

Section 14A provides for orders to be madeprohibiting trespassory assemblies. The ordersare made by the local council at the request ofthe police (in London by the Commissioner) andrequire the Secretary of State’s consent. Thepolice must believe that an assembly of 20 ormore people is likely to be held on land withoutthe permission of the occupier or exceeding thepublic’s right of access and that it may result inserious disruption to the life of the community.An order can be made for a maximum of 4 daysand a maximum of 5 miles radius from aspecified centre. It acts to prohibit all trespassoryassemblies within the area during that period.

18

Annex A

EXISTING PROVISIONS WHICH CAN BE USED TO TACKLE ACTIVITIESCARRIED OUT BY ANIMAL RIGHTS EXTREMISTS

Malicious Communications Act 1988

Under this Act it is an offence to sendcommunications or other articles with intent tocause distress or anxiety. The 1988 Act wasstrengthened by section 43 of the CriminalJustice and Police Act 2001 to cover all forms ofcommunication such as email, faxes andtelephone calls.

Section 241 of Trade Union and LabourRelations (Consolidation) Act 1992

Section 241 creates an offence where variousactivities are carried out with a view to compellinganother person to abstain from doing or to doany act which that person has a legal right to door to abstain from doing. The behaviour must be“wrongful” ie it must amount to a civil wrongsuch as nuisance, intimidation or trespass.Relevant activities include using violence to or intimidating the person concerned or hisfamily; injuring his property; and watching orbesetting his house or place of business or its approaches.

The section is most obviously relevant in thecontext of trade disputes. However, it is notlimited in its terms to such a dispute and one ofthe leading cases concerns a demonstrationoutside an abortion clinic. That case (DPP vFidler 1 WLR 91) may also illustrate thedifficulties in prosecuting for the offence in thecontext of pickets and demonstrations as itturned on the difference between “compelling”and “persuading”. The defendants arguedsuccessfully that their actions were designed topersuade, not to compel women not to haveterminations. The offence will also only beavailable where the protestors’ action is tortious.If the demonstration is entirely peaceful anddoes not involve trespass or intimidation oramount to a public nuisance, no offence undersection 241 may be committed.

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

It is a criminal offence under section 2 of theProtection from Harassment Act 1997 to pursuea course of conduct which amounts toharassment of another- harassment includesalarming or causing a person distress andconduct includes speech. An intention to causeharassment is not necessary, but it is necessaryto show that a reasonable person would think

the behaviour amounted to harassment. It is adefence to show that the course of conduct wasreasonable in the particular circumstances. It is an offence under section 4 of the Act topursue a course of conduct causing another tofear that violence will be used against him. Thecourt may make a restraining order on convictionfor either offence and a victim of harassmentmay take civil proceedings under section 3 ofthe Act for an injunction and damages for anyresulting anxiety or financial loss. The perceivedlimitations of the powers are that they require a “course of conduct” and an identifiedindividual against whom civil proceedings maybe brought.

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 wasamended by section 44 of the Criminal Justiceand Police Act 2001 to clarify that it is anoffence for a group of people to collude witheach other to cause others harassment, alarm or distress, where each one of theperpetrators only undertakes one action of harassment.

Breach of the Peace

The common law power to arrest to prevent abreach of the peace may also be available.

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

The offence of aggravated trespass was createdby Section 68 of the Criminal Justice and PublicOrder Act 1994, primarily to deal with theactivities of hunt saboteurs.

A person commits an offence if he trespasseson land and in relation to any lawful activitywhich persons are engaging in on that land,does anything which is intended to intimidate ordeter persons from engaging in that activity, orobstructing or disrupting that activity. The Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 extended the offenceof aggravated trespass to include buildings witheffect from 20th January 2004.

It is a known tactic of protestors to rush into abuilding with a view to intimidating, obstructingor disrupting people from going about theirlawful business. Animal rights protestors usethis tactic to disrupt the activities of targetedcompanies.

19

Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001

Section 42 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act2001 allows a police officer to give directions toany person who is “outside or in the vicinity of”a home, providing that

• the police officer reasonably believes that the purpose of the protestor’s presence isto persuade somebody to do something which they are not under any obligation to do, or conversely, not to do something which they are entitled to do; and

• the police officer reasonably believes that the presence of the person or people to whom he is giving the direction amounts to harassment of the resident, or is likely to result in harassment or to cause alarm or distress to the resident.

The direction may include any requirements thepolice officer considers necessary to prevent theharassment of the resident or the causing ofalarm or distress to the resident. Failure tocomply with a direction is an offence and thepolice have a power to arrest a person for theoffence.

Section 45 established a “secure register” forcompany directors. Since April 2002, anyCompany Director, Company Secretary or partnerin a limited liability partnership who is at risk ofintimidation and harassment may apply to theSecretary of State for Trade and Industry for aConfidentiality Order that places details of theirusual residential address on a secure register.Details of the home address of a Directorgranted a Confidentiality Order, will not appearon the Public Register of UK Directors, but maybe accessed by authorised bodies, e.g. thepolice or regulatory authorities. Since the SecureRegister was established, over 3,000 personshave been granted Confidentiality Orders.

Terrorism Act 2000

The Terrorism Act 2000 was introduced toprovide permanent UK wide legislation and tocover all forms of terrorism by widening thedefinition of terrorism in the Act. There are arange of provisions in the Act which are designedto target those who engage in serious violence,endanger life or create a serious risk to thehealth and safety of the public for the purpose

of advancing a political, religious or ideologicalcause.

Conspiracy

Where people are acting together and as aresult of an agreement to commit a criminaloffence this can be charged as a criminalconspiracy to commit the offences.

Theft Acts 1968 and 1978

Ordering goods and services in the name of athird party is covered by the offences ofobtaining goods and services by deception underthe both the 1968 and 1978 Theft Acts.

Stop and search powers

Section 1 of the Police and Criminal EvidenceAct 1984 has been amended so that since 20thJanuary 2004, the police have the power to stopand search for articles that could be used tocommit criminal damage.

Section 146 of the powers of CriminalCourts (Sentencing) Act 2000

Since 1 January 2004, courts in England andWales have the power to ban persons convictedof any offence from driving. This is a measurewhich could be used by the courts whensentencing persons convicted of offences suchas criminal damage, public order or harassmentetc.

20

Published by Home Office Communication DirectorateJuly 2004