Sir, You correctly recognise that the unlawful actions taken against my company and others by a very small group of animal rights extremists represent a campaign of terror, wreaked by terrorists (leading article, April 23).

Whilst new legislation will, of course, be appreciated by the industry, it will be some time before it is enacted. In the meantime existing laws, notably the Terrorism Act, which were designed, inter alia, to tackle precisely the type of threat we are facing, are not being used.

Perhaps the biggest shortcoming currently is the unwillingness, or inability, or both, of those responsible for investigation and prosecution to pursue diligently the handful of people who are responsible for the serial acts of terror which are dogging our industry.

If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes genuinely to attract new scientific investment into Britain (report, March 2), the Government must first find a way of ensuring that scientific industries are able to go about their business without intimidation and without fear. Many existing laws are currently being flouted openly. Adding to our arsenal of legal weaponry would be pointless unless we can demonstrate first that we are already enforcing existing legislation.

Yours faithfully,
ANDREW BAKER,
Chairman,
Huntingdon Life Sciences,
PO Box 2, Huntingdon,
Cambridgeshire PE18 6ES.
April 25.

From Mr Tim Lawson-Cruttenden

Sir, The maximum sentence for general harassment is not three months’ imprisonment, as you suggest. Under the Protection From Harassment Act 1997 the maximum sentence which a Crown Court can impose is five years’ imprisonment, and the magistrates can imprison for up to six months.

However, sentencing policy in this area needs urgent consideration. A recent analysis of the convictions of the 20 “leading” activists revealed 105 sentences and 35 conditional discharges. Thus, one third of the defendants were, in effect, “let off”.

It is difficult enough to secure a conviction for harassment in the first place. On conviction it seems that defendants have a one-third chance of securing a conditional discharge. This puts the odds very much against the victims of extremist behaviour.

Yours, etc,
TIM LAWSON-CRUTTENDEN,
(Co-author, Harassment Law in Practice, Blackstone, 1998),
Lawson-Cruttenden & Co,
10-11 Gray’s Inn Square, WC1R 4JD.
info@lawson-cruttenden.co.uk
April 25.

Explore Letters

• Feedback