Thank you very much for your professional correspondence. I apologise for my delayed response as I've been travelling the last couple of days.
I can confirm that I have received this paperwork and that I do intend to appear in court on Friday 26th May to contest this claim. The primary argument I will make will focus on the appropriateness of using civil law instruments like injunctions when there are ample criminal laws covering our actions, and that the (mis)use of an injunction effectively denies participants their democratic rights to a trial by jury. As legal professionals from a highly regarded a firm as Pinsent Masons, I hope you can see how the increased use of such instruments to repress nonviolent protest, of which this is just one example, represents an erosion of the rule of law. I will be filling my papers and contacting the court this afternoon to make arrangements to be there. I look forward to a respectful exchange.
There is one amendment I'd like to request from Amy Starkey's witness statement in advance of the hearing. I have also cc'd Amy in this email so she can see my request too.
In paragraph 12 it was reported that we communicated that Kerri Waters will be leading the peaceful protest and I (Dan Kidby) would be leading the disruption. However, this was not communicated by us. The only thing we said was that Kerri was going to attend (not lead) the peaceful protest. We did not state what I would be doing on the day and did not say I would be leading the disruption. I accept this was simply a misunderstanding and don't suggest in anyway this was an intentional misrepresentation of the minutes, but I would appreciate it if this amendment could be made. Kerri (cc'd) can verify this is what was communicated. As we have demonstrated by publicising our plans, having a very open meeting with The Jockey Club and BHA, and me being transparent in my co-founder role, we practice openness and honesty within Animal Rising. That being the case, if I was leading this demonstration, I would gladly say so. But unfortunately, my role in AR tends to be far less exciting than leading and planning actions. I focus on fundraising, dialogue (such as what we have with the jockey club), strategy, embedding nonviolence, and other small bits and bobs. I do also participate in some of our actions, such as the Grand National. My honest position is that I haven't yet decided whether or not I'm participating in the action at Epsom yet. I don't participate in every single action we do as we do too many. The reason why Kerri and I were the ones to meet with Amy and her colleagues is because we are in the dialogue team and believed it was the right thing to approach you considering the levels of disruption Animal Rising are causing, not because we take a leading role in the demonstrations. I apologise for not making that clear before and causing confusion. I fully understand how, by virtue of the fact that we were at the meeting, and because Amy is naturally unfamiliar with our organising structure, she would have perceived us as the leaders of demonstrations. Please let me know if you are willing to make this amendment. I am otherwise happy that the minutes are an accurate reflection of the conversation, and I thank Amy for recording them. Though I do note that as a summary some parts/details of the conversation have been omitted, and some parts of the reported minutes are more interpretation than plain reporting "we were able to robustly push back on all points".If we have time before Friday we may provide an alternative set of minutes which can act as a supplement to these. There are other things which I would contest from witness statements, such as the claim in paragraph 32.2 of Dickon White's witness statement that we put the horses, jockeys and ourselves at risk of serious harm, and other claims about the welfare of horses in racing, but I believe the appropriate place for that is in the courtroom.
With care,
Dan
488
Dan Kidby
269
2
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator