Crown Court - Beauty and the Beast (1977) - video Dailymotion

Jezza

Dr William Ranford (Nigel Hawthorne) and James Meetham (Edward Judd), directors of a cosmetics firm, are charged by The Movement of Protection of Laboratory Animals with conspiring to cause the unnecessary suffering to experimental animals in their laboratories. A mistake in a Home Office licence has allowed this prosecution to be brought as a test case.   Nigel Hawthorne is best known as Sir Humphrey Appleby in "Yes Minister" and later "Yes, Prime Minister", as well as a prolific stage career and starring in "The Madness of King George". Fulton Mackay (Dr Mckernan) was known from his appearances in Doctor Who (The Silurians) and the Avengers, but would go on to star in "Porridge". Joan Heath (Dr Weatherby) played May Hardman in Coronation Street, the first character to be killed off in the series.

Transcript

00:00:00You may not know that such experiments are conducted.

00:00:26The experiments you will hear described did undoubtedly cause suffering to the animals concerned.

00:00:32However, in the cause of this test for a new eye shadow, the relevant clause in the law does not forbid causing suffering, but causing unnecessary suffering.

00:00:41And that is what you have to decide.

00:00:42Was the suffering unnecessary?

00:00:45The prosecution who are bringing this case, that is to say the movement for the protection of laboratory animals, say that it was unnecessary.

00:00:52And we shall bring evidence to that effect.

00:00:54I call Sarah Stephens.

00:00:57Dr. William Ranford and James Meatham, directors of a cosmetics firm, are charged by the movement for the protection of laboratory animals with conspiring to cause unnecessary suffering to experimental animals in their laboratories.

00:01:09A mistake in a Home Office license has allowed this prosecution to be brought as a test case.

00:01:14The jury in this trial has been selected from members of the public, whose names appear on the electoral register and who are eligible for jury service.

00:01:21Is your full name Sarah Stephens, and do you live at flat 9A 42 Marlowe's Gardens, London, and do you work as a chemist at Animal Free Cosmetics of London?

00:01:32Yes, that is right.

00:01:33Mrs. Stephens, were you present as a visitor at the laboratories of Vanguard Cosmetics of Findlay near Fulchester on October the 14th, 1974?

00:01:41I was.

00:01:42What did you see there?

00:01:43I saw Dr. Ranford, the one in the brown suit, torturing some animals.

00:01:47Mrs. Stephens, it would be of assistance to us all if you avoided using emotive words.

00:01:51Now, what was Dr. Ranford actually doing?

00:01:54He was forcing a liquid mercury compound into some rats with a hypodermic syringe.

00:02:00He was also deliberately blinding rabbits with the mercury.

00:02:04If you bring me a rabbit, I can show you what he was doing.

00:02:06Mr. James.

00:02:07Are we to see the actual experiments, Mrs. Merritt? Is that really necessary?

00:02:13My lord, the witness will show how the experiment was done, but will not perform it.

00:02:17Nothing will actually happen to the animals.

00:02:19Very well.

00:02:20My lord, the rabbit will be exhibit one, and the accompanying eyedropper will be exhibit two.

00:02:26Very well.

00:02:26I'm afraid it won't balance on the edge.

00:02:29If it's all right, I'll put it on the table.

00:02:30Yes, yes.

00:02:33If you could just hold the rabbit.

00:02:37Mr. Ranford had a dropper like this, and he was dribbling the mercury solution from it

00:02:45into the rabbit's eyes and blinding them.

00:02:48He pulled down the eyelid like this, and put the solution in with the dropper.

00:02:57Now, Mrs. Stephens, what did the rabbits do during this part of the experiment?

00:03:02They were screaming and kicking.

00:03:03I saw one of them afterwards with red eyes, kind of blanked out.

00:03:09It was blind.

00:03:12Shall I show you what he did to the rats?

00:03:14If the court has no objection, I think it would be of value.

00:03:17Mr. James, would you be so kind as to remove the rabbit and bring over the rats?

00:03:21My lord, the rats will be exhibit three, and the hypodermic syringe with catheter will be exhibit four.

00:03:27Very well.

00:03:28Now, Mrs. Merritt, Mr. Ellis, I am allowing these demonstrations because the jury does need to know what the experiments actually look like.

00:03:35Though, why you couldn't do it by means of photographs, I have no idea.

00:03:39You know there's no shorter way of poisoning the springs of justice than by using a criminal court as a theatre.

00:03:46And that I will not allow.

00:03:48Now, proceed.

00:03:49Thank you, my lord.

00:03:51Yes, Mrs. Stevens.

00:03:52I shan't need you for this.

00:03:55There we are.

00:04:00Ranford had a hypodermic syringe like this, which he was pushing down into their stomachs.

00:04:06I could show you how, but it would hurt him.

00:04:09It goes into the mouth, down the esophagus, into the stomach.

00:04:15He was trying to kill them to see how much of the mercury solution it took.

00:04:22Well, it took the most enormous doses, I should say up to one-tenth of the body weight.

00:04:27The rats were in the most awful pain.

00:04:30They were scrabbling and fighting, paddling with their feet as he forced it in.

00:04:34I've never seen a more revolting sight in my life.

00:04:37They just died because of the sheer volume that he was pushing in.

00:04:42Mrs. Stevens, thank you.

00:04:43Mr. James, would you remove the rats and the rest of the equipment?

00:04:47Now, Mrs. Stevens.

00:04:49Do you want me to go back in there?

00:04:51If you would, thank you.

00:04:56Mrs. Stevens, you're a person with experience of the cosmetics trade.

00:05:00Was the suffering caused in these experiments necessary?

00:05:03No.

00:05:04They're barbaric and disgusting.

00:05:06The rat one is so repellent that most reputable scientists refuse to carry it out.

00:05:11The rabbit one is a particularly fiendish way of depriving an animal of its sight, slowly, with the maximum of pain.

00:05:18You can easily produce cosmetics without doing any of these tests.

00:05:22If you use natural products and human volunteers, which is what my firm does, and has done for ten years.

00:05:30Mrs. Stevens, thank you.

00:05:33Mrs. Stevens, perhaps you would tell the court how a person with your strongly held views on animal experimentation

00:05:41came to be in Dr. Ranford's laboratory at all, when he was doing these experiments.

00:05:47He invited me.

00:05:49He sent round a circular to people in the industry, telling everyone what marvellous products he was making.

00:05:55I thought I'd go and have a look.

00:05:56Do you think he knew you had these extreme views?

00:05:59Oh, I don't know.

00:06:00He didn't ask me what I thought about his goings-on.

00:06:03And you didn't tell him?

00:06:04Certainly not.

00:06:05You kept it secret?

00:06:07Well, like I kept it a secret that I have two children.

00:06:11He didn't ask and I didn't tell him.

00:06:13Well, there are clearly two views on whether you should have remained on the premises,

00:06:16since you were, to say the very least, in a false position.

00:06:20Still, let us move on.

00:06:23Now, how long have you been on the anti-animal testing bandwagon?

00:06:29Ever since I was at university and saw what they got up to in the biochemistry labs.

00:06:33And what is the main focus of your campaign this year?

00:06:37Oh, cosmetics.

00:06:39The revolting way in which many artificial so-called beauty products like eyeshadow

00:06:44are tested on animals before being put on the market.

00:06:47And what do you urge people to do?

00:06:49Oh, to boycott all such products.

00:06:51We just try to make people realise that by buying such products,

00:06:55they're conniving at and being implicated in those animal tests.

00:06:59If you buy an animal-tested product, some of that animal's pain rubs off on you.

00:07:05I see.

00:07:06So you urge people to boycott the product because it is tested in a manner in which you disapprove.

00:07:12Yes.

00:07:13I see.

00:07:14So we may assume that you are not now in court wearing anything that has been tested on an animal.

00:07:20Yes.

00:07:20I take great care over that.

00:07:22All of us in the movement do.

00:07:24Oh, good.

00:07:25Now, what do you think about the testing of drugs, medical preparations and household goods

00:07:29that are on sale to the general public?

00:07:32Well, on genuinely valuable drugs, most of us would accept that they must be tested first,

00:07:39usually by chemical means, but if necessary on animals to make sure that there are no side effects.

00:07:45But new, so-called consumer goods are different.

00:07:50We think that most of those are necessary anyway.

00:07:52I mean, things like new washing powders, new colourings for food and such like,

00:07:57most of those are just sold so as to look like something new.

00:08:00Yes, you believe it is wrong to test such household products on animals.

00:08:04Yes, there are other ways to test products.

00:08:06So obviously you don't use such products yourself.

00:08:10Not if I can help it.

00:08:11I see.

00:08:13Now, let us look at number 9A Marlowe's Gardens, where you live.

00:08:19Now, is there a kitchen there?

00:08:20Yes, a small one.

00:08:21Yes, very well.

00:08:22Let us face the draining board.

00:08:24What stands on it?

00:08:25Plate rack, wire wool, detergent.

00:08:27Did you know that detergent was sometimes tested on animals to make sure it was safe,

00:08:33in case people swallowed it?

00:08:34Yes, I did.

00:08:35All of us in the movement have had to argue about this kind of thing,

00:08:38but we had a petition about detergent, along with some other things, about a year ago.

00:08:42Yes, you knew it was tested on animals, and yet you use it.

00:08:45Why?

00:08:46Well, we have decided to boycott only luxuries,

00:08:50and we think that detergent is not a luxury.

00:08:53It is a personal decision.

00:08:54We take it.

00:08:55I see.

00:08:56Eyeshadow is a luxury, detergent is not.

00:08:59Well, that may seem to some a rather fine distinction.

00:09:02Well, you just have to draw the line somewhere, that's all.

00:09:05Indeed.

00:09:06Do you use floor polish?

00:09:09Not usually.

00:09:11I sometimes shine up the floor when I have people in.

00:09:13I use it then.

00:09:14There is no real substitute.

00:09:17Now then, food wrapping paper.

00:09:19Do you boycott that?

00:09:21No, I use that.

00:09:22You can hardly buy stuff that's not wrapped in artificial wrapping paper of some kind.

00:09:27Did you know that floor polish and wrapping paper were sometimes tested on animals?

00:09:32Yes, I did.

00:09:33It is just one of the compromises that one has to make if one wishes to run a home properly.

00:09:37Yes.

00:09:38Now, when you feed your children, do you offer them strawberry jam with artificial colourments in it?

00:09:44No.

00:09:45Go to the health food shop.

00:09:47I think it tastes nicer.

00:09:48Anyway, it is a luxury, so I would boycott it.

00:09:51I see.

00:09:52So detergent and floor polish and wrapping paper are in the view of your movement essentials and a strawberry jam and eye shadow are luxuries.

00:10:02Is that right?

00:10:02More or less.

00:10:03And the reason you are prosecuting Dr. Ranford rather than the people who may have tested your own detergent, floor polish and wrapping paper,

00:10:10is that Dr. Ranford was helping to produce a luxury and they, in your view, were not.

00:10:17More or less.

00:10:17Yes.

00:10:18Yes.

00:10:19But like I said, you just have to draw the line somewhere, and that is where I draw it.

00:10:25Yes.

00:10:26Mrs. Stevens, tell me one thing.

00:10:27In an area which is so full of shifting sands, so to speak, if you can claim that floor polish is essential, can't my clients legitimately claim that eye shadow is essential?

00:10:37No.

00:10:38I think it's just ludicrous to call eye shadow an essential.

00:10:41Any more ludicrous than clawing floor polish an essential?

00:10:44I'm not saying that the distinction is easy to make.

00:10:47It is just a decision that we all have to come to, one way or another.

00:10:51That's all.

00:10:52Nevertheless, it is a highly personal decision.

00:10:55Yes, of course it is.

00:10:58Yes.

00:10:59Mrs. Stevens, thank you.

00:11:15Dr. McKinnon, you are a general medical practitioner and also general secretary of the Movement for the Protection of Laboratory Animals, who is bringing this prosecution.

00:11:24Yes, I am.

00:11:24Did you, on November the 15th, 1974, visit Dr. Ranford at his laboratories near Fulchester?

00:11:32Yes, I did.

00:11:33I went to see him at the request of Mrs. Stevens, a long-standing member of our movement.

00:11:38She had reported certain rather alarming experiments to me.

00:11:42As a medical practitioner, I was able to talk to Dr. Ranford on a common professional basis.

00:11:48He agreed that he had been carrying out certain rather distressing tests on laboratory animals,

00:11:53in particular the Dray's eye test, a so-called test.

00:11:57Dr. McKinnon, did he agree that they were distressing?

00:12:01And if so, distressing to whom?

00:12:03To the animals or to the observers of the experiment?

00:12:05Well, he agreed they had caused pain, my lord.

00:12:09Yes, I see you think.

00:12:10Now, he also agreed, after some humming and hoeing, that he'd been carrying out the test known as the LD50 on rats.

00:12:18And what is that?

00:12:20Ah, the LD50.

00:12:21May I say at once, how pleased I am to be the first to expose this experiment before a British court.

00:12:30The LD50, my lord, is a test...

00:12:32Dr. McKinnon, would you please speak so that the jury can hear you?

00:12:36I'm so sorry.

00:12:36I do apologise.

00:12:37The LD50 is a test which gives a lethal dose to 50% of the animals on the test.

00:12:48Hence the initials, L for lethal, D for dose, 50 for 50%.

00:12:52Now, the LD50 is a test to establish what quantity of a substance, be it eye shadow or arsenic or even water, kills.

00:13:02Because, of course, even water can kill if you give enough of it.

00:13:07It cannot be completed.

00:13:10Cannot.

00:13:11Until half the animals on the test are dead.

00:13:14Now, dead, not ill, not distressed.

00:13:18But dead.

00:13:19Suppose they do not die, Dr. McKinnon?

00:13:22My lord, if I may say so, you have touched upon the heart of the matter with great judiciousness.

00:13:28The answer is you simply go on until they do die.

00:13:32I see, thank you.

00:13:34Now, why must they be dead?

00:13:37Why on earth do those people who carry out these experiments go for the kill?

00:13:42In fact, what they need to find out is how much of the eye shadow, for example, might make someone ill.

00:13:48A child, perhaps, who takes on by accident from a bathroom shower.

00:13:51Now, one moment, Dr. McKinnon.

00:13:53Do children, in fact, become ill through swallowing eye shadow?

00:13:56Rarely, my lord.

00:13:58Perfume and nail varnish remover are normally the products implicated.

00:14:02Yeah.

00:14:03So the LD50 is, in fact, a test which provides information we do not need to know.

00:14:10If I may quote from Food and Cosmetic Toxicology, Volume 8, 1970, page 214.

00:14:22The author says,

00:14:23We need to know the lowest dosage level which damages organs, not the completely irrelevant overdosage that the LD50 represents.

00:14:46Irrelevant, yes. Now, just remind us again why the level at which death occurs in an LD50 for eye shadow is an irrelevant piece of information.

00:14:56Of course, my lord. You would ban the eye shadow from the market as soon as you found it caused damage.

00:15:02Yes, thank you.

00:15:03You would not need to know what level of it killed. It is irrelevant.

00:15:08Please go on.

00:15:08So, the completely irrelevant overdosage.

00:15:15Now, ladies and gentlemen, this, these words were used of this test in 1970.

00:15:23Yet in 1974, Dr. Ranford is still discovered to be using it.

00:15:31Ladies and gentlemen, my lord, I put it to you that the LD50 is not science.

00:15:38It is a meat axe.

00:15:40You mean a crude and harsh measure of possible harmfulness when what is needed is some more subtle and informative test.

00:15:48That is it exactly, my lord.

00:15:49Yes.

00:15:50Now, as to the second test seen by Mrs. Stevens, the Dray's eye test, used in this case to test eye shadow.

00:15:59Well, it is open to one simple crushing objection.

00:16:04It risks blinding the rabbit, and in this case, did so.

00:16:12Well, you can do without your eye shadow. The rabbit cannot do without its eyes.

00:16:19Full stop. End of argument.

00:16:24So, Dr. McKernan, you believe that the Dray's test and the LD50 are cruel and unnecessary,

00:16:31and that in any case, no animal should suffer merely to produce luxuries for humans?

00:16:35I do.

00:16:35Thank you, Dr. McKernan.

00:16:39Dr. McKernan, my client, Dr. Ranford, will offer a detailed scientific rebuttal of your case against the LD50

00:16:48when he comes to give his evidence. It is his field of expertise.

00:16:53But first, I want to ask you a little about more general issues.

00:16:57Now, how long have you been General Secretary of the Movement for the Protection of Laboratory Animals?

00:17:04Four years.

00:17:05And before that?

00:17:06I was Chief Coordinator of the Committee to Combat Animal Testing.

00:17:11Yes, there was a doctrinal dispute which led to the setting up of this new movement as a separate organization, I believe.

00:17:18On a matter of principle, yes.

00:17:19And what was that principle?

00:17:21Well, I was and remain totally opposed to all experiments on any kind of living animal.

00:17:27For any purpose, including the production of, say, new drugs?

00:17:31Yes.

00:17:33Was it you, Dr. McKernan, who wrote in the New Movement's newsletter of April 1975,

00:17:41I see no reason for believing that man's life is of more value than that of any other species?

00:17:48Yes, it was, yes.

00:17:50And is that still your view?

00:17:51Oh, yes.

00:17:52And also, we must fight to the end against so-called medical testing.

00:17:57We will never betray our trust.

00:18:00Yes, that is my belief.

00:18:02It shows the fate of many revolutionary ideas in being unpopular.

00:18:06You actually believe that no experiments of any kind should ever be carried out on a living animal, even, for example, to find a cure for a disease?

00:18:15Yes, I do.

00:18:16Well, you do know that tens of thousands of experiments are carried out each year in animals in Britain to find a cure for cancer.

00:18:23Oh, yes, I know.

00:18:24But you see, when you actually look more closely at cancer, you'll find that it is largely brought about by man's own pollution of what he eats, of what he smokes, of his own environment.

00:18:35So I would ask, can we legitimately sacrifice another species to save ourselves from what is, in effect, a self-inflicted wound?

00:18:45Well, what about experiments aimed at finding a cure for heart disease?

00:18:49Oh, yes. Well, again, when you actually look at it, you'll find that heart disease is an affliction of an over-civilized, over-urbanized society.

00:18:58Now, if you really want to reduce heart disease, we should cut down on our intake of animal fats.

00:19:05I see. Well, this is strange territory, Dr. McKernan.

00:19:08You come here, a medical practitioner, as a witness on scientific matters, and yet you turn your back on the accepted techniques of modern medicine.

00:19:17Listen, I believe that the eternal verities of right and wrong are much more important than any passing scientific fashions.

00:19:25Dr. McKernan, if you went outside this court, stopped any passer-by, and argued that there should be no experimentation on animals for cancer research, what would he say?

00:19:35Well, unless he were one of a very small band of enthusiasts, he would probably disagree, but that would not be unusual.

00:19:42Any new idea requires careful seeding and preparation before it flowers.

00:19:47Well, it's surely not so much a new idea, Dr. McKernan, as of the total destruction of a cornerstone in modern medicine.

00:19:53Oh, yes.

00:19:55But slavery in its time was often described as one of the cornerstones of the British Empire.

00:20:01But it was wrong, morally wrong, and because it was wrong, it eventually perished.

00:20:07Yes, well, if you can turn from the 19th century to the present, doctor.

00:20:11Was it you who wrote, how can we say that the dolphin is superior to man, or man to the dolphin?

00:20:18Yes, it was.

00:20:19And did you also write, until we have a common standard of justice for man, mouse, and moorhen, then we have no justice at all worth the name?

00:20:31Yes, I did, if I may, my lord.

00:20:34You see, justice is not a matter of barristers, or wigs, or gowns.

00:20:39It is a principle.

00:20:42And as such, it cannot be appropriated by a single species.

00:20:45It is for all or for none.

00:20:49Well, did you also write, say what you like about the so-called creepy crawlies.

00:20:54As for me, the gastropod is a model of ecological sanity.

00:20:58If you see me one day doffing my hat at the garden rubbish dump, you will know that I am paying my respects to a passing snail.

00:21:07Now, is that you?

00:21:10No.

00:21:11That is one of our wilder contributors.

00:21:14You get many strange people in any animal protection movement.

00:21:19I should have thought you would have recognized it wasn't my style.

00:21:21What about, until biologists treat bacteria with respect due to another living species, they cannot expect that bacteria will cooperate.

00:21:33Now, is that one of yours?

00:21:34Oh, indeed, yes.

00:21:35If you look at the evidence from the east on such things as firewalking, there is a strong suggestion that even quite small organisms, conceivably those in the soles of our feet, respond startlingly to mental forces.

00:21:49Now, there is an area that I would seek to know more about.

00:21:53Dr. McKernan, let me put one thing to you quite bluntly.

00:21:56If your admitted views on the ethics of testing are as eccentric as you agree they are, what is your scientific opinion of the LD50 worth?

00:22:05You don't need to be a scientist to know that the LD50 is a barbarity.

00:22:09All you need is a spark of humanity.

00:22:13And as for my views being eccentric, Christianity was eccentric when it first came in.

00:22:19They used to throw its practitioners to the lions in the Colosseum, you know.

00:22:23Now, if you have arguments rather than ill-judged attempts at ridicule, let us hear them.

00:22:28Why, in fact, do you think that man is a master race entitled to torture and degrade animals as he will?

00:22:39Where is the logic in it?

00:22:40Dr. McKernan, I think most people would say it was common sense that a snail's life is less valuable than a human being's.

00:22:48Common sense?

00:22:49It was common sense once that men were born free men and slaves.

00:22:54It was common sense that children should work down coal mines.

00:22:58It was common sense that unmarried mothers should be hounded out of society.

00:23:03Common sense.

00:23:04Where is your humanity?

00:23:05Dr. McKernan, it is for counsel to ask questions.

00:23:08My lord.

00:23:10I have nothing.

00:23:12Oh, my lord.

00:23:15Dr. McKernan, just to clear up one or two points,

00:23:18it is your personal view that all testing on animals should cease.

00:23:24On living animals, yes.

00:23:25But you're not now seeking to convince the jury of that, but of some less sweeping proposal, are you not?

00:23:31Yes.

00:23:32What is it?

00:23:33Ah, that the testing of this particular eye-shadow ingredient in this way was unnecessary.

00:23:40Why?

00:23:41Yes, because while animal testing on certain products can only be avoided by major changes in our society,

00:23:51animal testing on eye-shadow can easily be avoided either by using naturally produced makeup,

00:23:57testing on humans, or, preferably, in my view, though this is only personal, by using none at all.

00:24:04Thank you, Dr. McKernan.

00:24:07My lord, that is the case for the prosecution.

00:24:09The cases in Fulchester are fictitious.

00:24:28Join us tomorrow when the movement for the protection of laboratory animals versus Ranford and Meatham

00:24:32will be resumed in the Crown Court.

00:24:34Thank you, Dr. McKernan.

00:25:04Dr. William Ranford and James Meatham, directors of a cosmetics firm, are charged by the movement

00:25:12for the protection of laboratory animals with conspiring to cause unnecessary suffering

00:25:16to experimental animals in their laboratories.

00:25:19A mistake in a Home Office license has allowed this prosecution to be brought as a test case.

00:25:25The jury in this trial has been selected from members of the public, whose names appeared

00:25:28on the electoral register and who are eligible for jury service.

00:25:31At the start of the second day of the trial, Dr. William Ranford is about to give evidence.

00:25:36My lord, I find myself today in some difficulty when opening my case,

00:25:44going to the disappearance of certain exhibits in the course of last night.

00:25:48My lord, early this morning my client, Dr. Ranford, received a message from a junior member of his staff,

00:25:54a Miss Jenkins, who had been entrusted overnight with the care of two animals and a flask of mercury,

00:26:01which were to have been exhibited in today's proceedings.

00:26:05My lord, Miss Jenkins alleged that she was in some distress at the evidence about animal experimentation

00:26:12given in this court yesterday, and in her own words had seen fit to liberate the animals,

00:26:18which consisted of a rabbit and a rat in a field near Mottram, St. Andrew.

00:26:26And she said she would be giving a press conference in the Pot Shrigley Motel,

00:26:32and would give herself up to the police there.

00:26:35Well, can't we get on without these distractions?

00:26:39The authorities will deal with this matter in due course.

00:26:42Can you proceed without these exhibits?

00:26:43Well, my lord, we can.

00:26:44Well, then, let's get on.

00:26:46My lord, there remains the matter of the flask of mercury,

00:26:49which must in no circumstances be allowed to get into the public water supply.

00:26:54Miss Jenkins has it with her.

00:26:56Well, I have no jurisdiction to deal with that.

00:26:58These things were not actually made exhibits.

00:27:01You'd better ask the police, the police, to proceed at once to the Pot Shrigley Motel,

00:27:06and there seize Miss Jenkins and her flask of mercury.

00:27:10Certainly, my lord.

00:27:11Would you deal with that?

00:27:14Now, then, let's get on.

00:27:18Dr. Ranford, do you challenge the account of your experiments given to this court by Mrs. Stevens?

00:27:25Yes.

00:27:26I would say that her feelings for animals led her to distort what she saw beyond all recognition.

00:27:34To take just one example, only one rabbit was blinded and in one eye only, and it was quickly destroyed.

00:27:41What Mrs. Stevens saw on that particular occasion was a bactericidal compound containing mercury passing through a standard Dray's screening test.

00:27:53Now, the test did, in fact, detect a substance which was irritant to the cornea of the eye.

00:27:58Now, you'll appreciate that the whole point of such screening test is, in fact, to detect such substances.

00:28:04There was also the LD50.

00:28:06Dr. Ranford, if I may intervene there for some explanations.

00:28:09Now, a bactericidal compound is what?

00:28:13In lay terms, it's a mixture of substances designed to kill bacteria.

00:28:16And the cornea?

00:28:19The horny, transparent covering of the eyeball.

00:28:23And a screening test, for the sake of the jury, Dr. Ranford.

00:28:28A screening test is a test to detect and eliminate substances harmful to humans before a product is made generally available.

00:28:36If I may, Mr. Ellis, it is a precautionary check.

00:28:40Yes.

00:28:41It's a term widely used around about the time of the disastrous thalidomide affair, which you may recall.

00:28:45There have been other alarms, but they haven't received quite so much publicity.

00:28:49Finacetan and Eroldin.

00:28:51The side effects can be very nasty.

00:28:53Yes.

00:28:54Now, Dr. Ranford, there has been some criticism in this courtroom of the particular screening test you used.

00:29:00Now, what was that?

00:29:02Yes, well, I'd like to take the so-called LD50 first.

00:29:07Now, as we've heard, L stands for lethal, D for dose, and 50 for 50%.

00:29:11This is a test generally carried out on rats to see how much of a substance kills half a batch of test animals, usually 12.

00:29:19And we take half in order to iron out any individual peculiarities that any particular animal might have, like being particularly sensitive to a substance.

00:29:28The idea being that if you took fewer than 12, you might get a false impression of how poisonous the substance was, because you were using too few animals.

00:29:37Yes.

00:29:38I see.

00:29:39Well, there has been criticism of this test, along the lines suggested by Dr. McKernan.

00:29:44But it has the approval of the Home Office in this country, and internationally it has the say-so of the World Health Organization, and it's considered obligatory in some cases by officials of the Food and Drug Administration in the United States where this particular product was going.

00:29:59In fact, that was why we were doing it, although we would probably also have done it for the British market.

00:30:04The American authorities insisted on it, but the British might have also had it been intended for the British market.

00:30:11Yes, they certainly approve of its being used, but we would probably also have done it to be on the safe side.

00:30:16I see.

00:30:17Probably, but not certainly.

00:30:19Yes, go on.

00:30:20Well, the point I'm driving at is this, my lord, that if you convict Mr. Meatham and myself on this charge, you're going to have to dismantle an entire network of governmental and intergovernmental safety procedures.

00:30:33Still, that's your business.

00:30:35Now, Dr. Ranford, it is the jury who will convict or acquit you, not I.

00:30:40I'm sorry, my lords.

00:30:43I'd like to return to the LD50, if I may, as it is central to the whole system.

00:30:49Now, around the world today, there are all sorts of scientists operating, good, bad, and indifferent, some very indifferent.

00:30:56Each tends to assess things in his own way.

00:30:59They all have their own private theories about how much of what causes what and why.

00:31:04Now, some people think that drowsiness on the part of an animal is a sure sign of a liver complaint.

00:31:09Someone else thinks it's bound to be a minor defect of the central nervous system.

00:31:13Nobody knows what is right.

00:31:15But death is death.

00:31:18Knowing for sure the precise amount of a substance that kills a particular species of animal is a secure point of reference.

00:31:26Proof against any error of interpretation by anyone.

00:31:31That is the great value of the LD50.

00:31:35Now then, Dr. Ranford, let us turn to the eye test on the rabbits.

00:31:40Ah, yes, the drays.

00:31:41Well, this has also been around the world, although it started off in the United States, for reasons which I should be glad to explain.

00:31:46In fact, when it became known that I was to be charged with conducting this test,

00:31:51I had several volunteers from the United States to offer to give evidence in my favour.

00:31:56In fact, I had hoped they might be allowed as witnesses.

00:31:59Your Honour, many years ago, when I was a resident of Kent...

00:32:04No, sit down, sir.

00:32:05Sit down!

00:32:07This court is not a theatre.

00:32:11Dr. Ranford, I take an extremely poor view of anybody who tries to stage things in my court.

00:32:16There must be no more of this.

00:32:17Well, I'm sorry, my lord, that was not intentional.

00:32:23The fact is that during the 1930s, before eye irritation tests such as the one I was conducting were introduced,

00:32:30people in the United States, like Mr. Vandenberg, were blinded by using shampoos based on detergents of a type known as cationic.

00:32:39I expect you know that shampoos are based on detergents.

00:32:41Well, these detergents proved unexpectedly damaging to the eye.

00:32:44Now, the eye test that I was conducting, the rabbit eye test, known as the Dray's, after its inventor,

00:32:51is used as a safety screen to ensure that products such as eye makeup and shampoo are unlikely to cause damage of this kind.

00:33:00Dr. Ranford, is it usual for the eye test to cause pain to the experimental animal?

00:33:05Well, it all depends what it is you're testing.

00:33:08If it is, in fact, harmless, then probably not.

00:33:10But if there is a risk to humans, then it may also hurt the animal.

00:33:14In fact, one of the compounds I was testing when Mrs. Stevens came in on her little expedition

00:33:18did, in fact, contain an ingredient which was capable of causing damage to the eye.

00:33:23Well, fortunately, it was caught by the test.

00:33:25But if it had not been, we might have had other cases of blindness on our hands.

00:33:29I mean, we're dealing with a very difficult compound.

00:33:31I make no excuses for preventing such disasters, but I must say I do get very irritated at having to waste,

00:33:39day after day, explaining the basic rules of preventive medicine

00:33:42to laymen totally unfamiliar with the scientific method.

00:33:45Dr. Ranford, I'm not sure whether you're aware of it,

00:33:48but you give the impression of being extremely condescending to the jury.

00:33:54If there's anything you find you can't explain simply, please ask my advice.

00:33:58I will, my lord.

00:33:58Dr. Ranford, in no doubt, some members of the jury may be asking themselves

00:34:03whether human volunteers could not have been used in experiments of this kind.

00:34:08Not when the substance was potentially toxic, as it was in this case.

00:34:12Let us have that quite clear.

00:34:14You were fully aware, you say, that the eye shadow ingredient you were testing

00:34:17might, in certain circumstances, cause harm.

00:34:22Yes, the toxic ingredient in our particular brand of eye makeup

00:34:25was a compound of mercury.

00:34:29Now, mercury is not normally used in makeup or in cosmetics of any kind

00:34:33because of its poisonous properties.

00:34:35But there is one exception.

00:34:38The human skin acts as host to countless millions of bacteria

00:34:43of a type known as pseudomonas.

00:34:44Now, would you like me to spell that?

00:34:48No, thank you, Dr. Ranford.

00:34:49Proceed.

00:34:51The pseudomonas also live in the intestine, the sinus and the faeces.

00:34:54They also infect dogs.

00:34:57Now, if you get them in your eye

00:34:58and the body's natural defences for some reason fail,

00:35:03then you can be blinded.

00:35:04In fact, one of the people who'd volunteered to give evidence on my behalf

00:35:09was blinded by this infection.

00:35:12Mr. Ellis, are there any more of these unfortunate people scattered about my courtroom?

00:35:16Not so far as I'm aware, my lord.

00:35:18Good.

00:35:19Proceed, Dr. Ranford.

00:35:21Now, pseudomonas bacteria are particularly resistant

00:35:24to nearly all bactericides, with the exception of mercury.

00:35:27Now, it is for this reason that mercury compounds are specifically permitted

00:35:32in eye makeup in the United States and in the common market as bacteria killers.

00:35:38Now, it is these mercury compounds that we were testing.

00:35:42Yes.

00:35:43Now, Dr. Ranford, I think that Lehman may have got a little left behind.

00:35:47Now, what have these bacteria to do with eye shadow?

00:35:53Eye shadow, when applied to the eye lid.

00:35:57Eye shadow, is a very fertile breeding ground for these bacteria.

00:36:01I see.

00:36:02So, you are saying that the animals, or some of them, did suffer pain,

00:36:06but this was in the cause of weeding out a potentially dangerous compound?

00:36:12Yes.

00:36:14Thank you, Dr. Ranford.

00:36:16Thank you, Dr. Ranford.

00:36:27Dr. Ranford, can you tell us something about your company?

00:36:35How large is it?

00:36:36We employ 30 people, including myself and Mr. Meatham.

00:36:41Last year, we had a turnover of around 400,000 pounds.

00:36:45Yes.

00:36:46I think the firm made a loss of 20,000 pounds last year and 30,000 the year before.

00:36:50Oh, well, that's not unusual in the early years of a company's existence.

00:36:54How long have you been going?

00:36:56Four years.

00:36:57Your last annual report says you employed 40 people, not 30.

00:37:01How is that?

00:37:02Well, we've made economies.

00:37:04I've become chief chemist, as well as managing director,

00:37:06and Mr. Meatham, the marketing manager, has also taken more on his shoulders.

00:37:11Well, certainly round the corner.

00:37:13Which corner is that?

00:37:15The corner involved in setting up a new firm on one's own.

00:37:18Cosmetic supplying is a highly competitive business.

00:37:20Now, where had you and Mr. Meatham worked together before?

00:37:23At the British branch of AFSID in New York, the International Drugs House.

00:37:28I was assistant chief chemist, and he was assistant marketing manager.

00:37:33And you broke away to set up in business on your own?

00:37:35Yes.

00:37:36You've made substantial losses ever since.

00:37:39We should be in the black before long.

00:37:41Yes, you must have needed a large American order badly.

00:37:43We would have survived without it.

00:37:47Now, how was it, do you say, that Mrs. Stevens came to be in your laboratory?

00:37:51She was posing as a potential client.

00:37:54How did she know the time and place at which to carry out this pose, as you call it?

00:37:58How did she know that you were conducting these experiments?

00:38:00Because we'd informed the British cosmetics industry

00:38:03of the new products that we'd successfully developed for the American market.

00:38:07I see.

00:38:07You wrote round to every British cosmetics firm you could think of,

00:38:10trying desperately to interest them in your new eye shadow

00:38:13in order to prop up your failing concern.

00:38:16The facts are that Mr. Meatham undertook an extensive promotion in this country.

00:38:21But surely you knew that Mrs. Stevens worked for a firm

00:38:24that wouldn't have touched your kind of cosmetic with a barge pole.

00:38:26Well, if I'd known she'd held these eccentric views,

00:38:28I should not have invited her in.

00:38:30I see you invited her.

00:38:32I thought you said that she posed as a client.

00:38:34Yes, it was an unfortunate oversight.

00:38:37Indeed.

00:38:39Now, tell me, Dr. Ranford,

00:38:41how or why did the mercury blind the rabbit during the experiment?

00:38:46The animal suffered severe corneal damage

00:38:49and hemorrhage of the conjunctiva.

00:38:52It was probably blind.

00:38:53We destroyed it.

00:38:54The blood vessels in the eye started bleeding.

00:38:56That is what hemorrhage of the conjunctiva means, is it not?

00:38:58Well, they're actually minor capillaries, if you want to be accurate.

00:39:01And how about the LD50?

00:39:03How did that kill the rats?

00:39:05The animals died when they ingested

00:39:06about one-tenth of their body weight of the substance.

00:39:10So the fatal dose for, say, a ten-ounce animal

00:39:12would be one ounce of the liquid?

00:39:15Roughly, yes.

00:39:17I must admit we were surprised it took so much.

00:39:19Mercury normally has early toxic effects.

00:39:22Yes.

00:39:23What I actually asked was how the experiment killed the rats.

00:39:27Did it poison them?

00:39:29Did it burst their organs internally or what?

00:39:31Well, there were traumatic failures of various kinds

00:39:34in the animals immediately prior to death.

00:39:36Stomach, heart, liver.

00:39:37You often get that.

00:39:38Yes, but could you not say in simple language

00:39:40if what you gave them poisoned them

00:39:42or burst their internal organs?

00:39:45Well, I could explain the etiology of death

00:39:47to a colleague in the field,

00:39:49but I should be reluctant to embark upon it here, I'm afraid.

00:39:52Dr. Ranford, counsel is asking whether the general effect

00:39:57that killed the experimental animals

00:39:59was a bursting of various internal organs

00:40:02due to pressure, a fairly slow process,

00:40:05or a relatively swift poisoning of the system,

00:40:08such as might arise from, say, arsenic or cyanide.

00:40:13Even laymen like myself and the jury

00:40:15can appreciate that distinction.

00:40:17Well, in general, there was no poisoning of the system.

00:40:21The amounts of actual mercury that we used

00:40:23were extremely small, and in consequence,

00:40:25the amount of solution that we had to administer

00:40:27in order to induce death were very large.

00:40:31Death, in fact, followed disruption of certain internal organs

00:40:35due to pressure from the solution.

00:40:37But it was only when death was induced

00:40:39that we had reliable and unchallengeable proof

00:40:42that the substance was not poisonous.

00:40:44It must be a fairly slow process

00:40:47forcing this amount of liquid into an animal,

00:40:49particularly if it's struggling.

00:40:51Well, nobody's claiming it's a particularly pleasant thing to watch,

00:40:54but it has to be done.

00:40:56Could you please explain once more, Dr. Ranford,

00:40:58if you were trying to assess the poisonousness

00:41:00or otherwise of this solution,

00:41:02why you didn't stop when it was clear

00:41:04that no poisoning effect was occurring?

00:41:07Because we were carrying out

00:41:08an internationally approved test, the LD50.

00:41:12And the purpose of that test is to find out

00:41:14what dose kills half the animals.

00:41:17Well, obviously then,

00:41:18you go on using successive batches of 12 animals

00:41:22until half the animals in any one batch are dead.

00:41:25But I must put it to you, Dr. Ranford,

00:41:27that irrespective of its international approval,

00:41:30this test was clearly brutal and wasteful.

00:41:33You went on taking batch after batch of animals,

00:41:36increasing the dose each time

00:41:38until half the animals in the final test were dead.

00:41:40Now, clearly you should have stopped

00:41:42when it became apparent

00:41:43that you were dealing with a non-poisonous compound.

00:41:45But it was only when the test was completed

00:41:47that we could be certain

00:41:48that the compound was non-poisonous.

00:41:51And I must repeat my view

00:41:53that the usefulness of the LD50

00:41:55as an international criterion

00:41:57outweighs any objections to performing it.

00:42:00Very well.

00:42:01Now, if there were 12 animals in this final test,

00:42:05six of them must have died

00:42:06in this extremely painful fashion.

00:42:08Well, the actual pain would have differed

00:42:10according to the activity of the central nervous system,

00:42:13internal trauma, shock, so on.

00:42:15Dr. Ranford, I can see that as a scientific man

00:42:18you are injured by this prosecution,

00:42:19but you must answer questions

00:42:21in a way that the jury can understand.

00:42:23Now, six, that is to say,

00:42:25half the animals died in this way, did they?

00:42:29Yes.

00:42:29In some pain.

00:42:31Yes.

00:42:34Now, Dr. Ranford, I'm going to read to you

00:42:36a survey conducted into the practices

00:42:38of six British cosmetics firms.

00:42:40Each were asked whether or not

00:42:41they tested their products on animals

00:42:43in the United Kingdom.

00:42:45Avon, no.

00:42:47Boots, no.

00:42:48Max Factor, no.

00:42:50Woolworth, no.

00:42:51Yardley, no.

00:42:53Elizabeth Arden, no.

00:42:56Now, if reputable firms like these

00:42:57find no necessity to use animal testing,

00:43:00why do you use it?

00:43:02Well, we don't supply these firms.

00:43:05You will have to inquire from them

00:43:06the precise wording of the statements they make

00:43:09and what they actually mean.

00:43:12But what I will say is this.

00:43:13No firm of which I know

00:43:15would put on the market

00:43:16a product which had even the remote chance

00:43:19of being toxic without testing it,

00:43:21if necessary, on animals.

00:43:22They would be mad not to do so.

00:43:25But there are some firms, are there not,

00:43:27that avoid all possible toxic products

00:43:29and therefore any need to test on animals.

00:43:32Some.

00:43:32But why don't you follow their example?

00:43:35Because people in this country

00:43:37seem to want something different,

00:43:38like they don't all seem to want to become vegetarians.

00:43:41I'm sure they're very wicked,

00:43:42but they seem to want more variety.

00:43:45It's called freedom of choice.

00:43:46The free market principle?

00:43:47Exactly.

00:43:48The principle that allows anyone to market his goods

00:43:50provided they're safe

00:43:51without any regard for animal suffering

00:43:53that may be involved in testing them.

00:43:55I'm going to read out a list of animal experiments

00:43:58conducted for the testing of what might be

00:44:00termed as luxuries.

00:44:02I'm sorry if the details prove unattractive,

00:44:05but I feel that we should know the kind of tests

00:44:07that lie behind the things we use in everyday life.

00:44:10This is an experiment taken from

00:44:12a journal of cosmetic toxicology,

00:44:14an experiment to test a new kind of food wrapping paper.

00:44:17With three daily doses of the substance to rats,

00:44:21internal bleeding was observed.

00:44:23With dogs, a high daily dose

00:44:25caused frequent vomiting and loss of appetite.

00:44:29Eye irritation tests on rabbits

00:44:31produced extensive swelling and bleeding.

00:44:33The entire cornea was opaque.

00:44:36That test was done to give the world

00:44:39not just wrapping paper, but a new wrapping paper.

00:44:42Do you justify these things?

00:44:43Most certainly.

00:44:44It's very important that wrapping paper

00:44:47should not have poisonous properties

00:44:48that get through to the food.

00:44:50On a shampoo test.

00:44:52All the rabbits struggled violently

00:44:54and three of the six rabbits screamed

00:44:56on insulation of the product.

00:44:58Now, is that suffering worth causing

00:44:59not just to give people shampoo,

00:45:02but a better shampoo?

00:45:03Are there not already plenty of such products

00:45:05already on the market?

00:45:06Well, if Mr. Vandenberg were allowed to give evidence,

00:45:09I'm sure he'd be able to answer that very effectively.

00:45:11For a food colouring used in flour and sugar confectionery.

00:45:15Four hours after being force-fed to rats,

00:45:18the animal's hair was observed to stand on end

00:45:20and it was noted that there was a red-coloured nasal discharge

00:45:23in the last hours before death.

00:45:25For cosmetics, test animals included beagles, piglets and baboons.

00:45:32For some species, the cosmetic ingredients proved severely irritant.

00:45:36In others, very severe reactions

00:45:38resembling a chemical burn were observed.

00:45:42Now, Dr. Ranford,

00:45:43is it worth giving a beagle a chemical burn

00:45:45in order to test a new cosmetic?

00:45:47I have nothing to add.

00:45:51You see no objection?

00:45:53None of any substance.

00:45:55You don't think it of barbarity

00:45:56to torture vast numbers of innocent animals

00:45:59just to produce a luxury?

00:46:01No, it doesn't strike me that way.

00:46:03You see no force in the argument?

00:46:06None whatever.

00:46:06And I'm surprised you do.

00:46:09I would like just to make one point, if I may.

00:46:13Look, I don't know how many of you

00:46:14registered many of the points

00:46:16that came out in the courtroom yesterday.

00:46:19But most of you probably owe your lives

00:46:21to experiments on animals.

00:46:24You buy the products that the experiments make safe.

00:46:27You elect the governments

00:46:29that encourage the free market

00:46:31and have allowed experiments on live animals for years.

00:46:35Yet, when Mrs. Stevens sees these experiments

00:46:38and complains to the police about them,

00:46:40the whole place goes up in flames.

00:46:43Oh, did you know they were using that stuff on animals?

00:46:46Oh, poor little things.

00:46:48Oh, animals.

00:46:49Animals?

00:46:50I never knew that.

00:46:51How cruel.

00:46:53That's what I mean

00:46:55by trying to explain things to a jury of laymen.

00:46:59How on earth do you think we test them?

00:47:01You can't do most of these experiments in a test tube.

00:47:04They don't work.

00:47:05It's animals or nothing.

00:47:07The cases in Fulchester are fictitious.

00:47:26Join us tomorrow

00:47:27when the movement for the protection of laboratory animals

00:47:30versus Ranford and Meatham

00:47:31will be concluded in the Crown Court.

00:47:33Dr. William Ranford and James Meatham,

00:48:00directors of a cosmetics firm,

00:48:02are charged by the movement

00:48:03for the protection of laboratory animals

00:48:05with conspiring to cause unnecessary suffering

00:48:08to experimental animals in their laboratories.

00:48:11The jury in this trial

00:48:12has been selected from members of the public

00:48:13whose names appear on the electoral register

00:48:15and who are eligible for jury service.

00:48:18They will reach their verdict

00:48:19during the course of this trial

00:48:20on the basis of the evidence that they hear in court.

00:48:24At the start of the third day,

00:48:25one of the defendants, James Meatham,

00:48:27is about to give evidence.

00:48:30You are James Meatham

00:48:33of the close Fitz James Avenue

00:48:35near Fulchester

00:48:36and you are marketing director

00:48:38of Vanguard Cosmetics Limited.

00:48:40That is correct.

00:48:41Mr. Meatham,

00:48:42prior to your taking up employment

00:48:44with your present firm,

00:48:45what was your job?

00:48:46I was assistant marketing manager

00:48:48for the British branch

00:48:49of Absinthe New York Limited,

00:48:50the International Pharmaceutical House.

00:48:52Dr. Ranford also worked for them.

00:48:54And why did you both leave your posts there?

00:48:57I think we both got fed up

00:48:58working for a stick-in-the-mud firm

00:49:00and reckoned we could do better by ourselves.

00:49:02And your firm,

00:49:03Vanguard Cosmetics,

00:49:04is the result?

00:49:05Yes.

00:49:06Good.

00:49:07Now, in 1974,

00:49:09did you agree with Dr. Ranford

00:49:11the broad guidelines

00:49:12for a series of experiments

00:49:13on animals

00:49:14to be conducted

00:49:15in the laboratories

00:49:16of your new firm

00:49:17in connection

00:49:18with an American order?

00:49:20Yes.

00:49:21And were these tests

00:49:22at the suggestion

00:49:23of the United States authorities?

00:49:25Yes, they were quite firm about it.

00:49:27And what was the order for?

00:49:29Eyeshadow.

00:49:30And what does that do?

00:49:32What is its function?

00:49:33It strengthens

00:49:34and brings out

00:49:35the upper part of the eye.

00:49:36It helps women,

00:49:37and in this case men too,

00:49:38look more interesting.

00:49:39This is a sort of unisex eyeshadow,

00:49:43is it?

00:49:43Yes, it's one of the new ideas

00:49:44we've been pushing in the States.

00:49:46A sort of joint pack

00:49:47for husband and wife.

00:49:49It has mascara,

00:49:51gels,

00:49:52and things known as blushers

00:49:53which accentuate the cheekbones.

00:49:55And eyeshadow too, of course.

00:49:56How much is this order worth?

00:49:58One moment, Mr. Ellis.

00:50:00Is this a so-called

00:50:01joint pack

00:50:03containing eyeshadow

00:50:04for men

00:50:05and mascara for women?

00:50:07And if so,

00:50:08are the blushers

00:50:09and gels, is it,

00:50:11are they for women?

00:50:11I'm afraid I haven't quite grasped it.

00:50:12No, my lord,

00:50:13the entire pack

00:50:14is for both men and women.

00:50:16But men don't wear mascara?

00:50:18My lord,

00:50:19they do

00:50:19in certain parts

00:50:20of the United States.

00:50:22Men of good character?

00:50:23Oh, yes.

00:50:24At dinner parties in California,

00:50:25you quite often see

00:50:26married couples

00:50:27where the man

00:50:28has a hint of makeup

00:50:29around the eyes and cheekbones.

00:50:30It looks very nice.

00:50:32People of standing

00:50:33in the community?

00:50:34Yes, ordinary people.

00:50:36But is it for display

00:50:38or to attract other men

00:50:40or for what purpose?

00:50:42Just to look nice,

00:50:43like women use it.

00:50:44I see.

00:50:45Well, this is a point

00:50:46of some significance.

00:50:47You see,

00:50:47the prosecution is saying

00:50:49that this eyeshadow

00:50:51that you are preparing

00:50:52is a luxury.

00:50:53Something that's,

00:50:54well,

00:50:55worn purely for display.

00:50:56It's an important part

00:50:57of their case

00:50:57and you seem

00:50:58to be conceding that.

00:51:00It's not to conceal scars

00:51:02or by way of trade

00:51:04as a film star

00:51:05or conceivably

00:51:06a madam might use it.

00:51:09You do see the issue.

00:51:10It's used purely

00:51:11for the sake of appearance,

00:51:12my lord.

00:51:13If it makes any difference

00:51:14to the court's feelings,

00:51:15we're pretty confident

00:51:16that about 90%

00:51:17of these preparations

00:51:18will be used not by men

00:51:19but by women.

00:51:21Good.

00:51:22Proceed,

00:51:23Mr. Meatham.

00:51:23If I may diverge,

00:51:24Your Honour,

00:51:25I was hoping that

00:51:25a witness of some distinction

00:51:27from the civil service

00:51:28would attend

00:51:29to give evidence

00:51:29for the defence.

00:51:30I'm happy to say

00:51:31she has now arrived

00:51:32and I trust my learned friend

00:51:33will have no objection

00:51:33to her sitting in court

00:51:34until she gives her evidence.

00:51:36Yes,

00:51:36let's get on then.

00:51:37Yes.

00:51:38Now,

00:51:39tell me,

00:51:39Mr. Meatham,

00:51:40did you at any time

00:51:41have any doubts

00:51:42as to whether

00:51:43these tests

00:51:44were necessary?

00:51:45None at all.

00:51:46The American authorities

00:51:47were most insistent.

00:51:48No,

00:51:49I mean generalised doubts,

00:51:50doubts about the morality

00:51:51of the whole thing,

00:51:52whether these tests

00:51:53ought to be performed at all,

00:51:54whether you ought

00:51:55to be exporting eye shadows,

00:51:57such generalised doubts

00:51:59as that.

00:51:59Never.

00:52:01Yes,

00:52:01why?

00:52:02Because this country's survival

00:52:04depends entirely on exports.

00:52:06Our deficit

00:52:07on the balance of payments

00:52:08last year

00:52:08was around

00:52:10a thousand million pounds,

00:52:11as I recall.

00:52:13The fall in the value

00:52:13of the pound

00:52:14and the present rate

00:52:15of inflation

00:52:15are due largely to the fact

00:52:17that we do not sell

00:52:18enough abroad.

00:52:19Mr. Meatham,

00:52:20would it be,

00:52:21what would be the effect

00:52:22if we refuse

00:52:23to test exports

00:52:24intended for the United States

00:52:26on animals

00:52:26in the way

00:52:27in which they demand?

00:52:29Do you really want to know?

00:52:31Oh, yes.

00:52:32Well, it's inconceivable.

00:52:33I don't know what to say.

00:52:34I suppose you could say

00:52:36that my firm

00:52:37would go broke

00:52:37within a few weeks

00:52:38and the country

00:52:39would soon follow,

00:52:40I expect.

00:52:40I mean,

00:52:42you can't play around

00:52:43with people's bread

00:52:44and butter like that.

00:52:45I mean, it's absurd.

00:52:46You have got to sell

00:52:47to live.

00:52:48And if that's what

00:52:49the customers want,

00:52:50then that's what

00:52:50you've got to give them.

00:52:52I mean,

00:52:52it would be economic suicide.

00:52:54I'm sorry,

00:52:55I just not considered

00:52:56anything so outlandish.

00:52:57Mr. Meatham,

00:52:58there's no need

00:52:59to be sorry

00:53:00for placing before the jury

00:53:01the four economic consequences

00:53:04of implementing the program

00:53:05set out by the prosecution.

00:53:07There can be no case

00:53:08for false sentimentality

00:53:09in this court.

00:53:11If I could just say something,

00:53:12you might make it sound

00:53:13as if I don't like animals.

00:53:15Well, I do.

00:53:15I'm very fond of them.

00:53:16I run my dogs

00:53:17in the park every day

00:53:18or get my manservant.

00:53:20It's just that you have to

00:53:20balance one thing

00:53:21against another.

00:53:22Yes, indeed,

00:53:23Mr. Meatham.

00:53:24Now, you say

00:53:25you are fond of animals.

00:53:26Now, when you heard

00:53:27Mrs. Stevens describing

00:53:28the rabbit being blinded

00:53:29in the test

00:53:30in your laboratories,

00:53:31what did you feel?

00:53:33I felt sooner a rabbit

00:53:34than a repetition

00:53:35of what happened

00:53:36to Mr. Vandenberg,

00:53:36I'm afraid.

00:53:38Yes.

00:53:40Would you please,

00:53:41uh, wait, there.

00:53:44Mr. Meatham,

00:53:46I think the view

00:53:47you're putting forward

00:53:48is that the economic

00:53:49interests of this country

00:53:51must be paramount

00:53:52over the welfare of animals.

00:53:54Where they conflict, yes.

00:53:55In effect,

00:53:55the needs of this country

00:53:56for foreign exchange

00:53:57must come first

00:53:58and animal welfare

00:53:59must be subservient

00:54:00to that necessity.

00:54:02Yes.

00:54:02Have you ever been to Spain?

00:54:05Often.

00:54:06We sell a lot there.

00:54:07Ever seen a bullfight?

00:54:09Yes.

00:54:10Was there a big crowd?

00:54:11Yes.

00:54:12Why would that be?

00:54:14I suppose people

00:54:15like to see a kind

00:54:16of gladiatorial display

00:54:18with an animal

00:54:18being hunted.

00:54:20Yes.

00:54:21Would you introduce

00:54:22bullfighting over here?

00:54:23No.

00:54:24Why?

00:54:25It's not traditional.

00:54:26That's not the reason,

00:54:27is it?

00:54:27It's part of it.

00:54:28Mr. Meatham,

00:54:29you'd be hounded

00:54:29from morning to night

00:54:31if you brought bullfighting

00:54:32here, wouldn't you?

00:54:33I'm afraid I don't see

00:54:34where this is leading.

00:54:35Mr. Meatham,

00:54:36the half-digested

00:54:37economic theories

00:54:38that you're offering

00:54:39the court

00:54:40would lead in logic

00:54:40to the setting up

00:54:41of game reserves

00:54:42where wealthy foreigners

00:54:43could come and ill-treat

00:54:44British animals

00:54:45to their heart's content

00:54:45provided they paid.

00:54:47I mean,

00:54:47you could have Arabs

00:54:48machine-gunning stags

00:54:49in Scotland,

00:54:50a little seal clubbing

00:54:52in Cumbria,

00:54:53and bulls being tormented

00:54:54by visiting American

00:54:55psychopaths in London.

00:54:56I mean,

00:54:56the foreign exchange

00:54:57would come rolling in.

00:54:58It's a ridiculous argument.

00:55:00Yours or mine?

00:55:00Yours.

00:55:01Why?

00:55:03Why?

00:55:03Well,

00:55:04people would never

00:55:05stand for it.

00:55:06How right you are,

00:55:07but that's where

00:55:07your argument leads.

00:55:11Now,

00:55:11do you know

00:55:11what a pitch pony is?

00:55:13My lord,

00:55:13I hate to cut short

00:55:14a debate

00:55:15on economic theory,

00:55:16but within the hour

00:55:17my next witness

00:55:18has to set out

00:55:19for the Palace of Westminster

00:55:20for an urgent debate.

00:55:22My lord,

00:55:23I shan't be long

00:55:24with your permission.

00:55:25Very well.

00:55:26Mr. Meatham,

00:55:27do you know

00:55:27what a pitch pony is?

00:55:29Yes,

00:55:29it's a pony

00:55:29that was used

00:55:30down coal mines.

00:55:31I think some of them

00:55:31still are.

00:55:32Do you know

00:55:32why they were

00:55:32taken out of use?

00:55:34I don't know.

00:55:34I expect they got

00:55:35in new machines.

00:55:36Oh,

00:55:36yes,

00:55:36they did,

00:55:37but there were

00:55:37also indignant protests

00:55:38at the savage way

00:55:39they were treated.

00:55:41Would you have

00:55:41opposed those protests?

00:55:43I don't know.

00:55:44Would you have

00:55:44pointed to the British

00:55:45coal export figures

00:55:46and said,

00:55:46no one cares more

00:55:47for pit ponies

00:55:48than I do.

00:55:49My manservant

00:55:50throws them buns

00:55:50every day,

00:55:51but I'm afraid

00:55:52the export figures

00:55:52must come first.

00:55:53I don't think

00:55:54my personal lifestyle

00:55:55has anything

00:55:56to do with this.

00:55:57Why are you

00:55:57in business,

00:55:58Mr. Meatham?

00:55:58To boost the export figures

00:56:00or to make money?

00:56:01Well,

00:56:01partly to make money,

00:56:02of course.

00:56:03Then perhaps

00:56:03you could spare us

00:56:04the cant

00:56:05about the balance

00:56:05of payments.

00:56:08Now,

00:56:09what does eyeshadow

00:56:10do for someone

00:56:10who wears it?

00:56:12Makes them

00:56:12more interesting,

00:56:13better to look at.

00:56:14Does it help

00:56:15your eyes

00:56:16communicate

00:56:16a subtle,

00:56:17inviting new world?

00:56:19Where's that from?

00:56:21From the advertising

00:56:22brochure you send

00:56:23round to the industry,

00:56:24including Mrs. Stevens' firm.

00:56:26Is it true?

00:56:27Well,

00:56:27within the limits

00:56:28of poetic license.

00:56:30Have you blended

00:56:30the mystery

00:56:31of smoke-deepened

00:56:32aquamarine

00:56:33with a hint

00:56:34of sheeny jade

00:56:35to produce

00:56:35spring's most

00:56:36alluring new colour,

00:56:38lambent,

00:56:38limpid green?

00:56:39I see nothing

00:56:40to sneer at

00:56:41at imaginative

00:56:42copywriting.

00:56:42Do the women

00:56:43who wear your

00:56:44preparations

00:56:44become,

00:56:46as you suggest here,

00:56:47remote,

00:56:47detached,

00:56:48aware?

00:56:49And are the men

00:56:50endowed with,

00:56:50if I have it right,

00:56:51a youthful confidence

00:56:52an assured,

00:56:53almost arrogant poise,

00:56:55a masterful,

00:56:55arresting elegance,

00:56:56a certainty

00:56:57that they're no longer

00:56:58just one more man

00:56:59in a grey flannel suit?

00:57:01If you want to sell

00:57:02rather than sit on your bum

00:57:03in a lawyer's office,

00:57:03you have to get people

00:57:04interested in what

00:57:05you're putting on the market.

00:57:06Mr. Meatham,

00:57:06there are ways

00:57:07of making that point

00:57:08with more courtesy.

00:57:09Is it worth

00:57:10torturing an innocent rabbit

00:57:11to make some narcissistic

00:57:12American woman

00:57:13remote,

00:57:13detached,

00:57:14aware?

00:57:15If you ask the people

00:57:16who work at my factory

00:57:17near Fulchester

00:57:17whether they would sooner

00:57:18be out of a job

00:57:19or making eye shadow

00:57:20for narcissistic

00:57:22American women,

00:57:23I know what they would say.

00:57:25I'm fed up

00:57:25with the way

00:57:26the idle professional

00:57:27classes of this country

00:57:28patronize and sneer

00:57:29at the businessmen

00:57:30who keep the place going.

00:57:31The copywriters

00:57:32who write that advertising,

00:57:34the people

00:57:34who rely on my sales efforts

00:57:36have nothing to do

00:57:37with the torture

00:57:37of innocent animals

00:57:38and nor do I.

00:57:39No,

00:57:40you just designed

00:57:41the experiments

00:57:41that pump them

00:57:42full of liquid mercury.

00:57:44We've been into that.

00:57:44Mrs. Merritt,

00:57:47I think you've made

00:57:47your point.

00:57:48If you've nothing else

00:57:49to deal with

00:57:49perhaps we could get on

00:57:50to the next witness.

00:57:51I have no further

00:57:51questions, my lord.

00:57:55I call Dr. Kathleen

00:57:56Weatherby.

00:58:11Dr. Weatherby,

00:58:12you are in fact

00:58:13the senior civil servant

00:58:15in charge of experimentation

00:58:16on animals,

00:58:17are you not,

00:58:18as well as being

00:58:19a doctor of medicine.

00:58:20Yes,

00:58:21I did doctoring

00:58:22for years in health.

00:58:23Then I did preventive medicine

00:58:24and now I'm doing animals.

00:58:27If you want the brisly truth,

00:58:29I've been in the civil service

00:58:3035 years.

00:58:31Then I'm sure you understand

00:58:32the field we're discussing well.

00:58:34As you probably know,

00:58:35this case involves

00:58:36painful experimentation

00:58:37on animals

00:58:38to test out

00:58:39a new eye shadow.

00:58:41Now,

00:58:41are such experiments

00:58:43in general

00:58:44permitted?

00:58:46Oh, yes.

00:58:47The principal act

00:58:49in this field

00:58:49authorizes experiments

00:58:51to advance knowledge.

00:58:53These experiments

00:58:54would certainly

00:58:54have advanced

00:58:55our knowledge

00:58:56of how mercury compounds

00:58:58react

00:58:58in a cosmetic context.

00:59:00and I might add

00:59:02that Dr. Ranford's

00:59:03experiments in this case

00:59:04had the prior approval

00:59:06of Sir Ian Warburton

00:59:07of the University

00:59:08of Wessex

00:59:09and another distinguished

00:59:10referee,

00:59:12Lord Full James,

00:59:13and Mr. DeCosta

00:59:14who worked with us

00:59:15as an inspector

00:59:16for 20 years

00:59:18vetted them beforehand.

00:59:18There's nothing

00:59:19hole in the corner

00:59:20about them.

00:59:21So, in fact,

00:59:22but for an irregularity

00:59:24in the wording

00:59:24of the licence,

00:59:26Dr. Ranford

00:59:26would never have come

00:59:27before this

00:59:28or any other court.

00:59:30Well, that is

00:59:30unquestionably true.

00:59:31If I may,

00:59:32Mr. Ellis.

00:59:33Now,

00:59:34members of the jury,

00:59:36you will recall

00:59:37Mrs. Merritt

00:59:37explaining

00:59:38at the beginning

00:59:39of this trial

00:59:40that experiments

00:59:40of this kind

00:59:41are indeed

00:59:42normally conducted

00:59:43under a licence

00:59:44issued by the

00:59:45Home Secretary

00:59:46under the Cruelty to Animals

00:59:48Act of 1876

00:59:50and that where

00:59:51such licences

00:59:52are in existence,

00:59:54these experiments

00:59:55are perfectly lawful.

00:59:56Now,

00:59:57a licence was issued

00:59:58in this case

00:59:59but as a result

01:00:00of an error

01:00:00in preparation,

01:00:02it was found

01:00:02to be invalid

01:00:03and therefore

01:00:04these experiments

01:00:05are not covered by it.

01:00:06Thank you, Mr. George.

01:00:07Dr. Weatherby,

01:00:08would you tell the court

01:00:10why you have volunteered

01:00:11to come as a witness

01:00:13in this case?

01:00:14Well,

01:00:14I really just want

01:00:15to emphasise

01:00:16that Dr. Ranford

01:00:17has done nothing

01:00:18which is not being done

01:00:19every month

01:00:20by dozens

01:00:21of reputable scientists.

01:00:23It's most unfair

01:00:24to single him out

01:00:25just because of this

01:00:25slip-up over the licence.

01:00:28If you want

01:00:28to reform the law,

01:00:30the proper way

01:00:30to do it

01:00:31is through Parliament.

01:00:32You make the point

01:00:32that a conviction

01:00:33in this case

01:00:34would mean not only

01:00:34accusing Dr. Ranford

01:00:35of inhumanity

01:00:36but of challenging

01:00:37the judgment

01:00:38of two distinguished

01:00:40scientists

01:00:40and an inspector.

01:00:42Something not

01:00:43to be done lightly.

01:00:44Yes.

01:00:45I mean,

01:00:45it seems to me

01:00:46that these people

01:00:46bringing this prosecution

01:00:48are saying

01:00:48one of two things.

01:00:50Either they're saying

01:00:51that testing on animals

01:00:52for luxuries

01:00:53is wrong

01:00:53and that they can

01:00:54define a luxury

01:00:55or they're saying

01:00:57all testing on animals

01:00:58is wrong.

01:01:00Well,

01:01:00if they're saying

01:01:01the first,

01:01:01of course,

01:01:01they'll write up

01:01:02a gum tree

01:01:03because it is

01:01:03absolutely impossible

01:01:04to define a luxury.

01:01:07Is cabbage a luxury?

01:01:09Orange juice?

01:01:10Television?

01:01:10I mean,

01:01:12you can live

01:01:12on bread and water.

01:01:14So that's luxurious.

01:01:16But if they are saying

01:01:18that all testing

01:01:19is immoral,

01:01:19well,

01:01:20then they're not

01:01:20only wrong

01:01:21but in my view

01:01:22actively dangerous.

01:01:24Yes.

01:01:24And what do you think

01:01:24of the view expressed

01:01:25by Dr. McKernan?

01:01:27Testing on animals

01:01:28is wrong

01:01:29because they are

01:01:29living beings

01:01:30with rights

01:01:31just like humans.

01:01:33No.

01:01:35Well,

01:01:35I think that's

01:01:35pretty pernicious stuff.

01:01:37What this animal lobby

01:01:38fails to realise

01:01:39is that man

01:01:41has only got

01:01:41where he is

01:01:42on this planet

01:01:42by imposing

01:01:43his views

01:01:44and his concepts

01:01:45on the rest

01:01:46of the animals

01:01:46who happened

01:01:47to be around

01:01:47at the time.

01:01:50Well,

01:01:50you may think

01:01:50that I'm a bit

01:01:51of an old cynic

01:01:51but I think

01:01:53man's values

01:01:54are a great deal

01:01:54more humane

01:01:55and merciful

01:01:56than animals.

01:01:57Well,

01:01:58it's a debatable point

01:01:59but I've seen

01:02:01wood ants

01:02:01eating a caterpillar

01:02:02on a laboratory bench

01:02:04and I'd not like

01:02:05to be that caterpillar.

01:02:07I mean,

01:02:07it's not that animals

01:02:08are unmerciful,

01:02:09it simply is

01:02:09they have no concept

01:02:10of mercy.

01:02:12Once you start

01:02:13dressing animals up

01:02:15in white robes

01:02:16you are placing them

01:02:17on a level

01:02:17with humans

01:02:18and once you do that

01:02:20you are putting

01:02:20a torpedo

01:02:21into the engine room

01:02:22of preventive medicine

01:02:23and medical research

01:02:24of all kinds.

01:02:25Yes,

01:02:26Dr. Weatherby,

01:02:26would you explain

01:02:27what you mean

01:02:28by preventive medicine?

01:02:31Well,

01:02:32rabies is the best

01:02:33example.

01:02:35As you know,

01:02:35you have to kill

01:02:36instantly

01:02:36with whatever means

01:02:37you have

01:02:38any beast

01:02:39that has rabies

01:02:39and kill others

01:02:41to develop the vaccine.

01:02:43I once dropped

01:02:44a rock

01:02:45on a suspected

01:02:45rabid prairie dog

01:02:47in India

01:02:47and then bashed

01:02:48its head in

01:02:48with a club.

01:02:50Of course,

01:02:51I suppose today

01:02:51they'd shoot it

01:02:52because it's less messy

01:02:54but the principle

01:02:55is the same.

01:02:57Once you allow

01:02:58that an animal's life

01:02:59is any more

01:03:01than a convenience

01:03:01to man

01:03:02you are on

01:03:02a slippery slope

01:03:03and successive

01:03:05parliaments have

01:03:06and in my view

01:03:07rightly

01:03:07always refused

01:03:08to go down

01:03:09that slope.

01:03:10In other words,

01:03:12you are saying

01:03:12that the experiments

01:03:13performed at

01:03:14Fulchester

01:03:14by Dr. Ranford

01:03:15were in the

01:03:16mainstream

01:03:16of a governmentally

01:03:17approved system

01:03:18that has

01:03:20stood the test

01:03:21of time.

01:03:22Exactly.

01:03:24Thank you,

01:03:25Dr. Wetherby.

01:03:27Dr. Wetherby,

01:03:29do you read

01:03:29the journal

01:03:30of the Metropolitan Police?

01:03:32Oh, no longer

01:03:33thank heavens.

01:03:34I used to have to.

01:03:35Yes, but you do

01:03:36in any way

01:03:36know of how

01:03:37police dogs

01:03:37sometimes get killed

01:03:38rather than refuse

01:03:39to leave their masters

01:03:40in the face

01:03:41of vicious criminals?

01:03:42Yes, yes.

01:03:43I once had to

01:03:44destroy a dog

01:03:45that had been

01:03:45injured in a bank raid.

01:03:47Dr. Wetherby,

01:03:48do you really

01:03:50understand

01:03:50at an emotional level

01:03:52how close

01:03:53the bond

01:03:53between man

01:03:54and animal

01:03:54can be?

01:03:56Well, I think

01:03:57emotion is often

01:03:58a very bad guide

01:03:58to policy.

01:04:00And people get

01:04:00so appallingly

01:04:01soppy about animals.

01:04:02Yes, but can you

01:04:03imagine how someone

01:04:04feels who has

01:04:04friends among animals

01:04:05when they hear

01:04:06that a dog

01:04:06is being choked

01:04:07to death

01:04:08with face cream?

01:04:09Oh, I don't think

01:04:10people make friends

01:04:11of animals

01:04:12in the same way

01:04:13as they do humans.

01:04:14You've never had

01:04:15any close animal friends?

01:04:16No.

01:04:17Have you ever seen

01:04:18a child cuddle

01:04:19a rabbit?

01:04:20Yes,

01:04:20with some trepidation

01:04:22about fleas

01:04:22and other parasites?

01:04:24So you can imagine

01:04:25how a child feels

01:04:26when he hears

01:04:26that rabbits

01:04:27are being used

01:04:28to test eye shadow?

01:04:29Yes.

01:04:30And I can also imagine

01:04:32how a mother feels

01:04:33when she finds

01:04:34that one of her children

01:04:35has been blinded

01:04:36by a nasty infection

01:04:38called Canis tropicana

01:04:39which can be caught

01:04:40from a pet dog.

01:04:42Rabies is not

01:04:43the only disease

01:04:44to be caught

01:04:44from animals,

01:04:45you know.

01:04:46Even children

01:04:46have to grow up

01:04:47and face

01:04:48the real world

01:04:48one day.

01:04:50Yes,

01:04:50Dr. Wetherby,

01:04:51do you think

01:04:52that 30 odd years

01:04:53of being in the civil service,

01:04:55of destroying

01:04:55wounded police dogs,

01:04:57smashing in the skulls

01:04:58of rabid dogs,

01:04:59observing experiments

01:05:00where ants eat caterpillars,

01:05:02all closeness

01:05:03to animal suffering,

01:05:05do you think

01:05:05those 30 years

01:05:07may have coarsened you,

01:05:08may have killed

01:05:09something in you,

01:05:10a capacity to respond

01:05:11as a person

01:05:11to animal suffering,

01:05:13perhaps?

01:05:14Well,

01:05:14I'd say

01:05:15I'm less sentimental

01:05:15about them

01:05:16than I was

01:05:17when I started.

01:05:17But you're not

01:05:18a hard-hearted

01:05:19or insensitive person.

01:05:20I hope not.

01:05:21Would you flinch

01:05:22at causing

01:05:23a rabid suffering,

01:05:24severe suffering,

01:05:25if thereby

01:05:26a pint of women's perfume

01:05:27could be safely marketed?

01:05:28Well,

01:05:28I'm in something

01:05:29of a hurry

01:05:30so I'll just say no.

01:05:31Dr. Wetherby,

01:05:32this is a criminal case,

01:05:34important to all

01:05:34parties concerned.

01:05:36Please, therefore,

01:05:37allow sufficient time

01:05:38to do justice

01:05:38to the issues.

01:05:40Would you not flinch?

01:05:41No.

01:05:42Suppose it were

01:05:43a question of

01:05:44a hundred

01:05:44or a thousand

01:05:45rabbits suffering

01:05:46so that a pint

01:05:47of perfume

01:05:47could be safely marketed.

01:05:49Well,

01:05:50I really can't answer that.

01:05:51I mean,

01:05:51it's so terribly hypothetical.

01:05:53And,

01:05:54well,

01:05:54anyway,

01:05:55if I may interject,

01:05:56I think we are

01:05:57a bit off the point.

01:05:58I mean,

01:05:59the point is

01:05:59that Dr. Ranford,

01:06:00to all intents

01:06:01and purposes,

01:06:01apart from this

01:06:02slip-up about the licence,

01:06:04was operating

01:06:05within a government-approved system.

01:06:07And that is what matters.

01:06:09And the system?

01:06:10Is a sound one,

01:06:11you think?

01:06:12Pretty good,

01:06:13yes.

01:06:13How many experiments

01:06:14to test cosmetics

01:06:15were done on animals

01:06:16last year?

01:06:17Oh,

01:06:17I don't know.

01:06:18We don't break them down

01:06:19by category that way.

01:06:20How many LD50s

01:06:22are done each year?

01:06:23Oh,

01:06:23that isn't reported,

01:06:24are there?

01:06:25How many experiments

01:06:26to test eye shadow?

01:06:27We don't record that.

01:06:29I see.

01:06:30Tell me,

01:06:31then,

01:06:32what is the level

01:06:33of certainty

01:06:34that the experiments

01:06:35conducted by Dr. Ranford

01:06:36had not been performed

01:06:37before in this country?

01:06:39Oh,

01:06:39pretty high.

01:06:40There are,

01:06:41of course,

01:06:41informal consultations.

01:06:42People know

01:06:43what their colleagues

01:06:44are working on.

01:06:45Even in rival firms?

01:06:47Oh,

01:06:47to an extent.

01:06:48I mean,

01:06:48papers are published

01:06:49from time to time.

01:06:51You see,

01:06:51so it is an eminently

01:06:52British informal system

01:06:54of like professional minds

01:06:56meeting casually,

01:06:57perhaps at a conference,

01:06:58to discuss work

01:06:59of common interest.

01:07:00I'm sure you're going

01:07:02to make this sound nasty.

01:07:04But broadly,

01:07:05that is the system.

01:07:06Or,

01:07:07putting it differently,

01:07:08if Dr. Ranford

01:07:09bumps into the right man

01:07:10at a conference cocktail party,

01:07:11his animals may be saved

01:07:13an agonizing death

01:07:14because he discovers

01:07:15that the experiment

01:07:16has been performed before.

01:07:17But,

01:07:18if his genial host

01:07:19sees him in the wrong direction,

01:07:21then Dr. Ranford's rats

01:07:22get pumped full of liquid mercury

01:07:24unnecessarily.

01:07:25I think Dr. Ranford

01:07:27would know

01:07:27what was going on

01:07:28in his own field.

01:07:30You're saying

01:07:31there is no

01:07:31watertight system

01:07:33to prevent

01:07:34unnecessary repetition,

01:07:35no general central

01:07:37public register

01:07:38of experiments,

01:07:40for example,

01:07:40but that,

01:07:41in your view,

01:07:42informal contacts

01:07:43are sufficient?

01:07:44Yes.

01:07:45I see.

01:07:46Dr. Weatherby,

01:07:48can I try and sum up

01:07:49why you think

01:07:50these tests are necessary?

01:07:52You're not emotionally

01:07:54touched

01:07:54by the thought

01:07:55of animals suffering pain.

01:07:57You, in fact,

01:07:57regard them

01:07:57as not much more

01:07:58than objects

01:07:59to be disposed of

01:08:00at man's convenience.

01:08:01For you,

01:08:01there's really no limit

01:08:02to the pain

01:08:03to which they can be subjected,

01:08:04even to produce

01:08:05a luxury as inessential

01:08:06as eye shadow.

01:08:07Is that fair?

01:08:08No.

01:08:09You see,

01:08:09I would start

01:08:10the whole argument

01:08:11from a different end.

01:08:14Things have to be safe,

01:08:16and there are

01:08:16recognized tests

01:08:18worked out

01:08:18by the government

01:08:19in cooperation

01:08:20with the scientific community

01:08:22to make them safe.

01:08:23Now,

01:08:25it would be

01:08:25folly

01:08:26to have them scrapped

01:08:27by bringing

01:08:27a prosecution

01:08:28of this kind,

01:08:30and that,

01:08:30I think,

01:08:31is the whole point.

01:08:33If this system

01:08:34is as terrible

01:08:35as you suggest,

01:08:36it would not have

01:08:36survived the scrutiny

01:08:37of successive governments.

01:08:39Possibly,

01:08:40Dr. Weatherby,

01:08:41but the system

01:08:42has never as yet

01:08:43been subjected

01:08:43to the scrutiny

01:08:44of a British jury,

01:08:45has it?

01:08:46My lord,

01:08:47if that is the end

01:08:48of substantive questions,

01:08:49I wonder if I might

01:08:50possibly be allowed

01:08:51to leave.

01:08:52I see my assistants

01:08:53signaling that I have

01:08:55to be back

01:08:55at the Palace of Westminster.

01:08:56I have no further

01:08:57questions, my lord.

01:08:59Very well.

01:09:06Now,

01:09:06I will repeat

01:09:07the important point.

01:09:09The accused

01:09:10are charged

01:09:11with conspiracy

01:09:12to do an act

01:09:13or series of acts

01:09:14which are prohibited

01:09:16under Section 1

01:09:17of the Protection

01:09:18of Animals Act 1911.

01:09:21Now,

01:09:22that act

01:09:22makes it an offence

01:09:23to wantonly

01:09:24or unreasonably

01:09:25do any act

01:09:26which causes

01:09:27unnecessary suffering

01:09:28to any animal.

01:09:32Now,

01:09:32a conspiracy

01:09:33is simply an agreement

01:09:34by two or more persons.

01:09:36There is no dispute

01:09:37that the tests

01:09:38alleged occurred

01:09:39and that the two accused

01:09:41agreed together

01:09:42to the carrying out

01:09:43of those tests.

01:09:45What is in dispute

01:09:46is whether the suffering

01:09:48was necessary

01:09:49or unnecessary.

01:09:51That is a question

01:09:52of fact

01:09:53and opinion

01:09:54for you to decide.

01:09:57Members of the jury,

01:09:58you will now retire,

01:10:00select your foreman

01:10:01and consider your verdict.

01:10:10Would the foreman

01:10:11please stand

01:10:12and just answer

01:10:13the question

01:10:14yes or no.

01:10:15have at least

01:10:15ten of you

01:10:16agreed upon your verdict?

01:10:17Yes.

01:10:18What is your verdict?

01:10:19Guilty

01:10:19or not guilty?

01:10:20Not guilty.

01:10:24Very well.

01:10:26Now,

01:10:27there will be an order

01:10:28that the defence costs

01:10:30be paid

01:10:30by the prosecution.

01:10:32I imagine

01:10:33those costs

01:10:33will be considerable,

01:10:34Mr. Ellis.

01:10:36Certainly

01:10:36several thousand pounds,

01:10:38my lord.

01:10:39Well,

01:10:39I'm afraid

01:10:40the movement

01:10:40for the protection

01:10:41of laboratory animals

01:10:43will have to pay.

01:10:45That's the penalty

01:10:45for launching

01:10:46a prosecution

01:10:46which the jury

01:10:47find to be ill-conceived.

01:10:49You're both free

01:10:50to leave this court.

01:10:52All stand.

01:10:53Let's see.

01:10:54Well,

01:10:55let's see.

01:10:56Now,

01:10:56let's see.

01:10:58Let's see.

01:10:59Let's see.

Crown Court - Beauty and the Beast (1977)

Category

Transcript

Comments

Recommended