Judges decision sparks GM action
Judges decision sparks GM action
By Adrienne Francis
ACTIVISTS are planning a major offensive after a High Court judge overturned the conviction of protestors who destroyed a trial of genetically modified crops.
In a landmark decision, Mrs Justice Rafferty ruled that GM protestors could not be convicted unless someone working on the land was intimidated by their action. The case hinged on the offence of aggravated trespass, which was originally created to curb the activities of road protestors and hunt saboteurs.
Genetix Snowball campaigner Rowan Tilly, who was at the centre of the case, had been convicted of destroying a GM trial in Cambridgeshire in 1999. But Mrs Justice Rafferty overturned the conviction, saying that aggravated trespass was an offence targeted at the intimidation of people, not protection of property.
Speaking after the decision, Ms Tilly said the ruling would strengthen the activities of Genetix Snowball whose members have helped destroy many GM trials. She told farmers weekly: "Next year will be the last year of the national trials and we will be wanting to make a big impact."
Campaigners would "definitely be taking further action, starting with nationwide meetings within the next fortnight", said Ms Tilly. "We will also be trying to plan further permanent crop camps throughout the country, similar to the active Munlochy site in Scotland."
Drilling has commenced for 30 GM trials which will be harvested next year. But out of 105 GM trials sown last spring, 30 were damaged or destroyed, claim activists. The Genetics Engineering Network web-site, used by GM opponents to exchange information, describes their destruction as "croptastic".
Biotech firms are now faced with the dilemma of protecting the trials. Daniel Pearsall, spokesman for the Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops, said: "There can be no justification for causing damage to private property or for disrupting a legitimate programme of independent scientific evaluation."
Barney Holbeche, NFU head of parliamentary affairs, called for the law to be tightened. He said: "The law on aggressive trespass just doesnt bite. We absolutely deplore the criminal activities of these protestors who wreak havoc on farmers and will now go untouched by the law."
Dr Sue Mayer, director of GeneWatch UK, which monitors biotechnology developments, said: "The way this case is interpreted will set the political climate for the future. While I dont support direct action, I can understand why some people have been driven to these lengths." *