Campaigners Celebrate as Monsanto Loses

Genetics Goes on Trial

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 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 judge disagreed and ordered that the case proceed to a full trial. The temporary injunctions which Monsanto had already obtained against the six continue[3] A full trial is expected within the next four months. Monsanto had asked for an order that the defendants 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 at 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 (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’ - that is, the defendants cannot be held liable for individuals uprooting crops without their explicit direction.

Defendant Zoe Elford said, “Today’s ruling is a great victory. Our defence of public interest persuaded the judge that the issues should be heard at a full trial. Monsanto have tried to use punitive legal tactics to silence protesters. This strategy has backfired.”

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 the prevention of crime’, and refers to ‘gene pollution’ from Monsanto’s GM plants damaging other farmers’ crops.