Salmon farmer accused of blocking UK investigations into alleged animal rights breaches | Fishing industry

Certainly one of Europe’s largest salmon farmers has been accused of attacking the civil rights of environmental campaigners by asking for sweeping restrictions on their freedom to research alleged animal rights breaches.The Faroese firm Bakkafrost, which produces about 20% of the UK’s farmed salmon, has requested a decide to contemplate banning the campaigner Don Staniford from going inside 15 metres of any of its fish farms, boats and barges.The corporate is looking for an interdict, or injunction, that will prolong to anybody performing with Staniford, or guided by him, from approaching, getting into or boarding any of Bakkafrost’s greater than 200 salmon farms, ships, factories, docks, hatcheries and places of work – together with its head workplace in Edinburgh.Civil rights teams argue that Bakkafrost’s authorized motion quantities to an try and shut down reliable investigations within the public curiosity, utilizing a tactic often known as a strategic lawsuits in opposition to public participation, or Slapp.Staniford, one of many UK’s most distinguished fish farm campaigners, has already been ordered to keep away from fish farms and land bases in Scotland owned by the Norwegian multinational Mowi and by Scottish Sea Farms.Staniford has documented situations in Scottish salmon farms. {Photograph}: Colin McPhersonStaniford, who is predicated in north-west England and identified to his supporters because the “kayak vigilante”, boards salmon farms to search for any proof of illness or parasite infestations on fish, or any proof of unlawful chemical discharges, at occasions with documentary film-makers and journalists.All three companies say they uphold the very best authorized and welfare requirements on their farms.Bakkafrost’s authorized motion, being heard at Dunoon sheriff courtroom close to Glasgow, is attempting to ascertain an excellent broader restriction than its opponents by asking for the 15-metre exclusion zone round all its water-borne belongings. Breaching that interdict can be a contempt of courtroom, exposing campaigners to the danger of imprisonment.Mowi tried and did not impose an analogous exclusion space in opposition to Staniford however that restriction was thrown out on enchantment. Staniford mentioned Mowi is pursuing him for £123,000 in courtroom prices and authorized prices – a invoice he’s unable to pay.Nik Williams, a coverage officer with the Index on Censorship and a co-chair of the UK Anti-Slapp coalition, mentioned sweeping bans of this sort, notably if the interdict appeared to incorporate anybody related to Staniford, had a chilling impact on public debate.He mentioned: “Wherever there are authorized constraints like this, individuals will step again scrutinising these extremely influential industries”, including it was “fairly regarding” that Bakkafrost was looking for a 15-metre exclusion space regardless of realizing that Mowi’s software to take action had failed.Bakkafrost desires its “prolonged interdict” to incorporate Staniford “by himself or by his brokers, staff, or servants, or by anybody performing on his behalf or beneath his directions, or procurement”.Within the first day of the listening to, Staniford’s lawyer, Nicole Hogg, informed the sheriff, Laura Mundell, the decide presiding over the case, that Bakkafrost wished sweeping restrictions on him with out specifying why they had been wanted.skip previous e-newsletter promotionThe planet’s most vital tales. Get all of the week’s atmosphere information – the great, the unhealthy and the essentialPrivacy Discover: Newsletters might comprise details about charities, on-line adverts, and content material funded by exterior events. In the event you should not have an account, we’ll create a visitor account for you on theguardian.com to ship you this article. You possibly can full full registration at any time. For extra details about how we use your knowledge see our Privateness Coverage. We use Google reCaptcha to guard our web site and the Google Privateness Coverage and Phrases of Service apply.after e-newsletter promotionStaniford is thought to his supporters because the ‘kayak vigilante’ {Photograph}: Colin McPhersonShe mentioned it had failed to supply proof that it owned or leased the land-based properties it wished to guard, or why an exclusion zone was vital at sea. “It isn’t sufficiently exact,” she informed Mundell.Ruairidh Leishman, performing for Bakkafrost, mentioned the 15-metre zone was helpful as a result of it set a exact boundary for the courtroom, nevertheless it was asking for it to be imposed provided that the decide believed it vital.He mentioned the case it had in opposition to Staniford can be disclosed at a later listening to, however this was not an assault on his freedom of expression.Though Staniford had voluntarily agreed to not enter its properties in December 2024 whereas its software was being heard, he had continued to make extremely essential feedback about Bakkafrost. “This a case about property rights and never freedom of expression,” Leishman informed the courtroom.The case is because of proceed at a later date.