The Barrister -  Stephen Tromens on the Animal Health Act - Click here!

FMD - Legal Issues - Mary Marshall - Click here!

The EU Draft Constitution - Click here!

For the Freedom of Information Act 2000 - Click here!

The European Charter of Human Rights - Click here!

The Bill of Rights 1688 - Click here!

IMPORTANT! - FMD FILES

"The true scale of the tragedy is only now emerging. In Gloucestershire, Hereford & Worcestershire and Shropshire, in total 871 farms were culled - but only 33 tested positive on laboratory testing, ie, 26 farms were culled for every one farm that was positively identified in the lab.

It has taken 8 months for the Government to admit it only tested 1728 of the 2030 so called Infected Premises - and that of these only 1327 were positive on laboratory testing.

Why did the Government wait nearly 4 days before imposing national movement restrictions?

Holland did so on 20 February - the day the disease was confirmed - so why not the UK?

Why was the EU Contingency Plan for FMD of 1993 not acted upon?

Why did the Government ignore the EU Emergency Strategy for Vaccination of 1999?

Why did the Government tell the EU it had 2030 Confirmed Cases when only 1327 had been confirmed in the lab, in accordance with the EU standard, as per Directive 85/511/EC?

It is now clear that the Contiguous Cull was illegal and that it was also illegal to forcibly gain entry and slaughter farm animals that were not infected, against the farmer's wishes.
Those that took the decisions to pursue a control policy founded on illegal activities must be brought to account.

The sheer cost of the disaster alone deserves the full rigour of a public inquiry.
The Cost of 2575 Temporary Vets was £ 33 million The Cost of digging up ash from pyres and its reburial has already cost £30 million so far, and is continuing, one farm alone cost £1.8 million £1.25 Billion in compensation for slaughtered animals £701 Million in disinfecting, slaughterers and hauliers, etc £471 Million Livestock Welfare disposal All in all the Exchequer is looking at a cost of £2.8 Billion, costs to Tourism of between £3-5 billion and overall cost to the Nation of £20 Billion (IOD) Source Pre Budget statement 27.11.01, IOD and Parliamentary Questions & Answers

But perhaps those who most deserve to know the truth are those whose livelihoods and way of life have gone forever. Those too traumatised to re-stock, those who could not bear to see their healthy animals slaughtered for no good reason, and those who saw their life's work of breeding, rearing and animal welfare destroyed by unjustified models and mindless bureaucracy. These alone deserve no less than a full, thorough and open public Inquiry."(*provided by the NFMG)

It would seem that an Open Public Inquiry would seek the truth and recommend an alternative strategy for adoption in the future. So far, the Government has refused this and set up its own Inquiries instead. Although one would like to believe that they will be open-minded and seek the truth, knowing that they are associated with those members of the Royal Society who were responsible for the modelling program that recommended the policy, one cannot help but be suspicious.

This suspicion has been further compounded by the discovery through a 'leaked' memo that the 3km 'voluntary' cull in Cumbria was in fact, NOT voluntary and farmers were misled as to their legal rights. We have also learnt that the Government wishes to introduce draconian amendments to the Animal Health Bill. This also gives rise to great concern. Among other things, these amendments give the Ministry rights of entry and slaughter on a warrant, thus preventing farmers and lawyers challenging the decision through the Courts prior to the event.

Many people are doing their best to challenge the Government on all these matters. However, the percentage of the population who work in agriculture and will be directly affected, is very small. Every effort must be made to ensure the wider public are aware of the Government's plans to further erode our human rights in this way. We hope to keep you regularly updated on the progress of legal matters on this page.

Animal Health Bill Amendments

We are extremely concerned that the Government proposes to amend the Animal Health Act, introducing draconian measures giving the Minister wide powers to slaughter animals of any species. These measures include animals that do not have to be susceptible, or exposed to a particular disease. In addition, they propose to do give the Minister the right to do so immediately, on a Warrant issued by Magistrates, thus preventing the animal owners from defending their animals through the Courts prior to slaughter.

The Government's proposed amendments to the Act  have been rejected by the House of Lords, pending the result of the Government's Inquiries. Having been passed by the Commons, we hope the House of Lords decision will considerable influence the Government to think again before continuing to try to get such cruel injustice as they propose, on the statutes. 

Farmtalking continues to give support to farmers affected and is in regular contact with many of the lawyers who have done so much to help them. However, many are concerned that should they lose their case, the legal costs levied by Government lawyers would be more than they could afford. Therefore, a legal fund has been established to help to cover them. If you would like to contribute to this fund, please make your cheque payable to 'Farmtalking Legal Fund' and send it with a note of your name and address to Farmtalking, our address is here!

Open Public Inquiry - the Legal Perspective

The Secretary of State should be directed to reconsider her decision "according to law" if any one of these issues succeeds.

1: What is the purpose of a power to call a public inquiry?
When the Secretary of State decided to hold a private inquiry rather than a public one did she consider that the purpose of an inquiry should be (or include) a desire to restore the confidence of the public in the Government's ability to handle a particular matter - what has been described as a "nationwide crisis of confidence"?
If she didn't - then her decision was unlawful.

2: All the extra-judicial guidance given to the Government in recent years (and previously) about when to hold a public inquiry points towards a public inquiry in this case.
Such guidance includes that given by:
Lord Mackay, Lord Chancellor, in his Note to all Government Departments;
Lord Justice Scott in the "Arms to Iraq" report;
Lord Justice Clarke in his report on the safety of The Thames following the Marchioness disaster;
Professor Kennedy in his report on the Bristol Royal Infirmary crisis.
Was the Secretary of State free to ignore those indications in this case, and if so, why?
If she was not, her decision was unlawful.

3: The only significant judicial guidance on the matter is to be found in the recent decision of the Court overturning the decision of the Health Secretary not to hold a public inquiry arising out of the activities of Harold Shipman (the Wagstaff case).
In that case the Court said that when the inquiry is not an internal departmental inquiry there is what amounts to a presumption in favour of a public inquiry.
Is that presumption to be applied here, and if not, why not?
If it is, then in the absence of compelling reasons to the counter the presumption, the Secretary of State's decision was unlawful.