Activists Selby, Wadham, Medd-Hall and Nicholson
Four members of the Cambridge-based (UK) group Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) were convicted Tuesday of blackmail for running a campaign against companies and individuals with links to Huntingdon Life Sciences.
Gerrah Selby, 20, Daniel Wadham, 21, Gavin Medd-Hall, 45, and Heather Nicholson, 41, were convicted over the six-year campaign, which prosecutors say was designed to shut down the animal research laboratory based in Cambridge.
Four other activists had also been involved: Gregg Avery, 45, his wife, Natasha Avery, and Daniel Amos, 22, had earlier pleaded guilty to the same charge. Trevor Holmes, 51, was acquitted.
The activists were accused of targeting employees of Huntingdon Life Sciences, Europe’s largest contract medical testing center, with threats of violence, vandalism of homes and businesses, letter bombs and firebombs between 2001 and 2007. A jury at the Winchester Crown Court took more than 33 hours to convict the four, who had pleaded not guilty.
“The sole aim of SHAC was to close down the business of Huntingdon Life Sciences in Cambridgeshire because they use animals in the testing of pharmaceutical products,” said Alastair Nisbet, a senior prosecutor.
Steven Bird, a lawyer for the defendants, said they were very disappointed at the outcome. “We will consider any grounds for appeal in the next couple of weeks and advise our clients accordingly,” he said.
The four will be sentenced on January 19. They face up to 14 years in prison.
Update: Sentences handed down.
Striking at the Roots 
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 24, 2008 at 3:20 am
steveshark
So, do you support these people?
Do their methods seem justified to you?
December 24, 2008 at 4:34 pm
mhawthorne
Steve,
I don’t believe animal activism should include physically harming another being. I think the bigger picture regarding vivisection is the fact that hundreds of millions of defenseless animals are tortured, mutilated and killed every year by humans, simply because they feel they have the right to.
December 25, 2008 at 1:47 am
steveshark
You haven’t answered my second question.
How do you justify graverobbing, arson attacks, psychological intimidation with ‘AIDS infected’ (note inverted commas) sanitary towels sent through the post and false accusations of paedophilia?
December 25, 2008 at 1:50 am
steveshark
By the way, I wasn’t inferring that the four individuals above employed all the methods I listed above – just that such methods are used by similar groups.
December 28, 2008 at 4:35 pm
mhawthorne
I justify it by viewing sites like this:
http://www.lcanimal.org/cmpgn/cmpgn_016.htm
Primates, dogs, cats, rabbits, rodents and other animals are blinded, burned, dissected, gassed, infected, injected and killed in hidden laboratories around the world. Researchers commit these acts against innocent animals because they believe humans are superior to non-human animals and are therefore entitled to do as they wish, so long as it is done in the name of science.
January 6, 2009 at 11:09 am
steveshark
So, the only difference between what you do and a researcher does is that he does what he does in the name of science and the people you support do what they do in the name of animal activism. Both beolieve that they’re doing the right thing – unless you’re inferring that researchers get some sort of gratification from animal suffering.
For what it’s worth, I’m opposed to any animal testing apart from that involved in human and animal pharmaceuticals and farming. Testing for cosmetics, personal care products, cleaners, and military purposes I’m dead opposed to.
January 23, 2009 at 10:57 am
Crackdowns Not Deterring Animal Activists « Striking at the Roots
[…] can be extreme, animal campaigners have indeed been active. Crackdowns on activists in Austria, the UK and the US have only seemed to escalate the level of animal-rights activism. The open rescue model […]