Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Jessa Latona and Heather McCabe not going to prison for GMO vandalism

By johnboy - 3 August 2012 63

gmo wheat vandalism

The ABC brings news that the Greenpeace Two have succeeded in their appeals to the better nature of Justice Penfold and won’t be spending time in the pokey for their wheat whacking ways:

Prosecutors told the ACT Supreme Court, a jail term was warranted because the attack was planned in full knowledge the law would be broken and the women had shown no remorse.

But the defence told the court Greenpeace has now paid more than $280,000 in reparations, and both women are now aware of the seriousness of their actions.

Lawyers for the women urged a suspended sentence.

Justice Hilary Penfold agreed, but will not impose a formal sentence until October.

What’s Your opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
63 Responses to
Jessa Latona and Heather McCabe not going to prison for GMO vandalism
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 10:09 am 05 Aug 12

Jethro said :

bigfeet said :

Jethro said :

It would be a crime. You would deserve to go to jail.

You would not be a terrorist.

Was terror created from the act of cutting down some GM crops?
Therefore, no terrorism.

You are confusing a few concepts here.

There is no necessity to create a feeling or “terror” to fulfill the legal definition of “terrorism”

For example, if there were a serial killer in a particular area targeting the elderly, or children, or just anyone at all, it would certainly be create a feeling of terror (or be terrifying) for many people in that area.

But that is not terrorism.

There are offences designed to cover these types of things. It is illegal to kill someone. It is illegal to blow up a building. It is illegal to destroy property.

It is not the act, but it the reason behind it that makes an act terrorism.

I see your point, but disagree.

Terrorism must incorporate the act, not just the ends. Terrorism stands out as a crime amongst crimes. It involves more than the ‘ends’ but the ‘means to the ends’.

The crop destruction was certainly done for political purposes. It (possibly) involved violence (if you include destruction of property as violence).

But, I’m sorry, I just can’t see it falling under the umbrella of terrorism. The fact that these women got let off without a prison sentence suggests that the law doesn’t see it as terrorism either (although, as they say, the law is an ass; on the other hand, Australian law isn’t skewed in favour of anyone who could possibly be classified as a terrorist).

To fall back on Wikipedia… “terrorism is the systematic use of terror… Definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear.”

Cutting down some plants could fall under a range of crimes, some of which demand lengthy prison sentences. But it is not terrorism. No fear was created. No people felt terrorised. No-one was threatened or put in harm’s way. No-one felt as though they were in harm’s way.

At the end of the day, what happened was some people cut down some plants with a brush cutter. Trespass? Yep. Destruction of property? Yep. Vandalism? Yep. Industrial sabotage? Yep. Prison sentence deserving? I would say so.

Terrorism? No. It doesn’t matter that there was a political motive, otherwise all political protest would be terrorism. It doesn’t matter that there was violence (against a plant), otherwise all violent crimes would be terrorism.

The families of those who were killed in London, Bali, New York, Lockerbie, Belfast, Madrid, Munich, Beslan would argue vehemently against including this crime as terrorism.

I’m sure you feel passionately about what happened. But labeling any crime as terrorism only serves to devalue the word.

Look, I’m sorry, you may feel very strongly that what happened was a serious offense (I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with you on that), but it just is not terrorism. Terrorism is a crime that stands out against other crimes.

If Greenpeace were to choose terrorism as their MO against GM crops, they would have taken steps to create terror. They would have targetted civilians

Well said and agree 100%

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | |

Search across the site