Walney report: Government is seeking to ban groups it disagrees with, says Good Law Project

 

Responding to Lord Walney’s review of protests, Good Law Project executive director Jo Maugham said: 

We are firmly into the territory of our government banning organisations whose politics it disagrees with. This is a sinister and shameful development, which moves us closer to the plastic democracies of Turkey and Hungary and further from our peers.

Clamping down on dissent does not make issues like global conflict and the climate crisis go away. A competent government that values freedom of speech would be trying to solve the big issues, not criminalise the messengers.

The man responsible for this report, Lord Walney, has links to an arms manufacturer supplying weapons to Israel which has been targeted by Palestine Action and he has close links to the oil and gas industry whose ecocide Just Stop Oil targets. LINK

What really motivates this report - the public interest or money?

Good Law Project takes sewage scandal to High Court next week

 From Good Law Project

On Wednesday 5 to Thursday 6 July, the High Court will hear a legal challenge that aims to force the Government to toughen up its plan for reducing sewage dumped in England’s rivers and seas. Good Law Project is supporting the Marine Conservation Society, Richard Haward’s Oysters and surfer and activist Hugo Tagholm as they argue that the Government’s strategy is inadequate, allowing water companies to pollute waters and beaches for another 27 years.

England’s sewers were designed with 14,500 storm overflows to stop them becoming overwhelmed, allowing a mixture of surface water and sewage to be discharged during heavy rainfall. But according to the Environment Agency, these overflows are now used on a routine basis. Water companies discharged untreated sewage through storm overflows more than 300,000 times in 2022 for a total of 1.7 million hours.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) published the Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan to tackle this in August last year. It imposed a deadline of 2035 for reducing the sewage flowing into bathing waters and areas of ecological importance, but gave companies until 2050 to stop discharges elsewhere.

This legal challenge, which has been backed by cross-party MPs, aims to force the Government to bring forward these deadlines and introduce tougher targets. 

Facing pressure from this case, DEFRA has already announced a consultation on expanding its storm overflows plan to include protections for coastal and estuarine waters. This initial win for the claimants, which the Marine Conservation Society hailed as “a huge victory for our seas”, means that one of the legal grounds has already been settled before even being heard in the courtroom.

Success in this case could set a landmark precedent, which would allow others to use an ancient English legal principle called the Public Trust Doctrine to compel those in power to protect the natural environment.

Legal Director of Good Law Project, Emma Dearnaley, said:

The public is - rightly - angry and upset and calling for urgent action on sewage pollution.

This hearing is a huge moment for the future of our rivers and seas. This is our chance to force the Government to put in place a robust plan to put an end to the sewage scandal blighting our country.
 

Success in this case could also set a significant legal precedent by reviving an ancient legal principle that would require the Government to take positive steps to protect our shared natural resources. This is a potential game changer for future environmental challenges.

CEO of the Marine Conservation Society, Sandy Luk, said:

This is a momentous court case to hold the UK Government to account for our right to a clean and healthy ocean. 

This is achievable, but we need urgent and decisive action from the Government to make it happen. For the sake of people and planet, we need sewage-free seas.

8th generation oysterman, and Director of Operations at Richard Haward’s Oysters, Tom Haward, said:

For eight generations the Haward family have grown oysters in Essex and sold them throughout the UK and beyond. Our livelihood balances completely on water quality. 

We work hard to protect and nurture the environment we rely on to produce our oysters, and the relentless dumping of sewage into our seas risks destroying something so precious. 

Just as we invest in our business so that my daughter and future generations can be proud of and continue our legacy, so too should water companies be held accountable and invest in ensuring British waterways are flourishing and safe ecosystems that future generations can enjoy.

Good Law Project plans legal challenge over voter ID rules

 

 From Good Law Project

Plans to bring forward a legal challenge over new mandatory voter ID rules ahead of the next general election were announced by Good Law Project yesterday (Sunday 30th April). This comes on the back of mounting concerns that the Government’s Elections Act 2022, which requires voters to present certain forms of photo ID, could lead to significant numbers being turned away from polling booths at this Thursday’s local elections across England.

This legislation, expected to cost the taxpayer up to £180 million over ten years, provides a list of valid Government-accepted photo IDs to vote with. However, the list has sparked significant controversy as it includes many forms of ID available to older people, such as an Older Person’s Bus Pass or 60+ Oyster Card, but disallows 18+ Oyster Cards and 16-25 railcards.

Good Law Project has been raising concerns about how these rules could disenfranchise young people and other communities. 

As a possible solution, the Government recently introduced ‘Voter Authority Certificates’, but the latest figures show the scheme has had a very poor take up with around 4% of the estimated 2.1 million people who do not have valid ID applying for one.

Good Law Project has taken and will proceed from legal advice from a team led by a specialist King’s Counsel to monitor the effects and impacts of the voter ID rules on the upcoming local elections and bring a case against the Government to challenge these rules before the general election.

Executive Director of Good Law Project, Jo Maugham KC, said:

The voter ID rules are a really bad thing to happen in a democracy - a needless act of sabotage against the universality of the franchise. 

On the evidence, they cannot be explained otherwise than as an attempt to deny those likely to vote against the Government the ability to do so. They need to be challenged, in court. And this is exactly what we plan to do.

"Where is the justice when defendants cannot explain their motives, hopes and aims for taking action to save thousands of other people's lives in the UK and around the world?"

 From the Good Law Project

Two climate change protesters, who were sentenced to seven weeks in jail after telling a jury their reasons for taking peaceful action, are challenging that they were found in contempt of court, thanks to Good Law Project. 

Amy Pritchard and Giovanna Lewis were given custodial sentences of seven weeks in prison by Inner London Crown Court last month after they disobeyed a Judge's order not to refer to climate change or fuel poverty as their motivation for blocking traffic with the group Insulate Britain. 

Good Law Project believes it is in the interest of the public to stop the silencing of protesters and will argue that the court was wrong to have withdrawn the protesters' defences and limited what they could say to the jury. 

Amy Pritchard, 37, and Giovanna Lewis, 65, were on trial for causing a public nuisance after sitting in the road to block traffic between Bishopsgate and Wormwood Street in Central London on 25 October 2021. Jurors failed to agree a verdict on their trial but the protesters were found in contempt of court and given seven week prison sentences after they addressed juries at their trials to speak about climate change and fuel poverty as their reasons for the direct action. 

Inner London Crown Court has been ordering Insulate Britain protesters not to refer to climate change or fuel poverty whilst addressing the jury in their trials, saying that their motivations for acting the way they did had no relevance to what the jury had to decide. Many campaigners and lawyers have expressed concern at what they believe to be an extension of the more punitive treatment of protesters following the 2022 Police Crime and Sentencing Act.  

Jennine Walker, Legal Manager, Good Law Project said:  

We cannot celebrate the protests of the suffragettes yet stand by and do nothing as people protesting peacefully against climate change are silenced and punished by increasingly repressive laws and judicial system. We hope the Court of Appeal will put an end to these disturbing decisions that silence climate protestors and undermine the crucial role both protest and jury trial play in upholding our democracy.

Appellant and activist, Amy Pritchard said: 

The Judge's order to keep silent about our motivations is outrageous, and I could not follow it. I think this Judge's decision, and the direction it moves us in, is deeply disturbing.

Appellant and activist, Giovanna Lewis said: 

It is shocking and unbelievable that a UK crown court Judge could, or would even want to, prevent ordinary people from mentioning the words fuel poverty and climate change in a British court of law.  Where is the justice when defendants cannot explain their motives, hopes and aims for taking action to save thousands of other people's lives in the UK and around the world?

New Government measures to tackle sewage dumping scandal are a drop in the ocean

 In response to the Environment Secretary's announcement of the Government’s new ‘Plan for Water’, Legal Director of Good Law Project, Emma Dearnaley, said:
 

Overwhelming public outrage has finally forced the Government’s hand on the sewage scandal blighting our country.

But the reality is that the Government’s ‘new’ plan, some of which is repackaged from previous years, only aims to reduce the number of sewage spills by private water companies through storm overflows into our rivers and beaches by 10,000 per year - to a mere 290,000 a year based on recent figures. This is a drop in the ocean.

We need more robust and urgent action to bring the shocking practice of sewage dumping to an end if we are to protect our waters for generations to come. That is why Good Law Project is supporting a number of legal challenges to hold this Government and water companies to account over what has become one of the biggest environmental scandals of our times.

BREAKING: Supreme Court ruling today should help campaigners fighting for protection of green spaces

From Good Law Project

 

The Supreme Court today ruled in favour of a Good Law Project-funded case which will help to protect green spaces from being sold off where there is opposition from local communities. The ruling sets a new precedent for how public green spaces are sold by local authorities in the future. 

Greenfields Community Group, led by campaigner Dr Peter Day, in Shropshire, has been fighting for almost six years over the land, arguing that Shrewsbury Town Council should have consulted residents before selling off the green space.  

Last June, Shrewsbury Town Council apologised "unreservedly" over the sale of part of Greenfields Recreation Ground and promised to buy the land back. The council was instructed by its lawyers not to buy it back until the Supreme Court judgment.

The campaigners will now hold the council to account over its pledge so that the local community can once again use the space for recreation.

In handing down the ruling, Lady Justice Rose said:

It is our view that [Shrewsbury TC] must put robust procedures in place to ensure that an oversight such as this is not permitted to recur. Where there should be any future sale of land [Shrewsbury TC] must be able to demonstrate that [it] has taken sufficient steps to establish the legal status of that land and act in accordance with all relevant legislation prior to sale. [Shrewsbury TC] should consider whether it has the legal power to proceed with any future disposals and, for the sake of good governance, should formally document the powers on which it has relied when making any such decisions.

Legal Manager of Good Law Project, Ian Browne, said:

We are delighted with today’s Supreme Court ruling which will set a precedent to help safeguard green spaces across the country from being sold off and the rights of communities to enjoy them for generations to come.

Shrewsbury Town Council failed to consult the local community about the selling off of the land and it has led to a protracted legal battle which should not have been necessary in the first place.
 

We are thrilled to have backed the tenacious efforts of Greenfields Community Group and Dr Peter Day to secure this landmark judgment, which means that Shrewsbury Town Council will now have to meet very strict criteria before they are able to sell off any green spaces in future.

Supreme Court to rule on sale of park land to developer without adequate consultation

 

From Good Law Project

The Supreme Court will decide tomorrow (Wednesday 1 March) whether planning permission should have been granted for a piece of sold off park land, after locals argued that they have a right to continue using the space for recreation. 

The decision could have far reaching repercussions for the sale of green spaces in the future.

A section of Greenfields Recreation Ground was sold to a housing developer in 2017 and earmarked for 15 homes.

Local residents, who have been campaigning for six years to reclaim the site, say the local authority should have consulted with them before the sale was made.  

The Greenfields land was first bought by the local authority in 1926 for £1,000 and held in trust for community use.

Shrewsbury Town Council was criticised in a judicial review in 2019 for failing to identify the status of the land before selling it. The local authority has already apologised for its "failures".

Good Law Project has been supporting and helping to fund the legal action and believes the case will set a precedent for councils to consult with residents before they sell off land that has public value.

Campaigns Manager for Good Law Project, Hannah Greer, said:  

Recreational spaces are so important for our quality of life, and that was especially highlighted during the pandemic.
 

It’s simply not right for these spaces to be taken away by a local authority without consulting those who use it. We hope the Supreme Court will agree with us and help stop this happening again.

Further information LINK

Good Law Project considering appeal on Partygate legal challenge refusal

In response to the High Court's ruling today that a legal challenge brought by Good Law Project and former Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Lord Paddick, against the Met's handling of its Partygate investigation, will not be given permission to go ahead, Director of Good Law Project, Jo Maugham, said:
 

We are disappointed - but sadly not surprised. We think this decision ignores the quite proper questions that people have about what they understandably perceive to be differences of treatment between the powerful and the rest of us.

 
It can’t be one rule for those in power and another rule for us.

We are considering whether to appeal.

Partygate hearing to be considered by High Court tomorrow

From reddit.com

 

 

 From Good Law Project

A legal challenge against the Metropolitan Police’s investigation into Boris Johnson’s attendance at lockdown parties could be given permission to proceed in a High Court hearing tomorrow (Wednesday 22nd February). The action is being brought by Good Law Project and a former Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Lord Paddick.

Boris Johnson was issued with a £50 Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN), after the Met Police’s probe concluded that he had unlawfully attended a birthday party thrown in his honour at Downing Street during the first lockdown. 

But this case focuses on the Met Police’s failure to even send questionnaires - their primary method of investigating Partygate events - to former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, regarding two other lockdown gatherings that he attended in November and December 2020. A number of civil servants and officials who took part in these events were sent questionnaires and ultimately fined.

In pre-action correspondence, the Met failed to explain why Mr Johnson was not sent the questionnaires, or how they concluded that his attendance - unlike that of other attendees - was lawful.

The High Court has ordered a permission hearing to determine if a judicial review into the police investigation can go ahead. A ruling could be made on the same day.

This is the second time that Good Law Project has taken legal action against the Metropolitan Police over Partygate. In January 2021, the Met did a u-turn on its initial decision not to investigate the parties held in No 10 Downing Street and Whitehall, after Good Law Project issued legal proceedings.

Jo Maugham, Director of Good Law Project, said:
 

We can't understand - and the Met won't disclose - how Boris Johnson dodged fines for going to parties that junior civil servants were fined for attending. But what it looks like is special treatment for the powerful.

I don't care about Johnson. And nor do I care about £100 fines. What I do care about is the rule of law. It must apply without fear or favour - or everything will fall into the sea.

Former Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Lord Paddick, said:
 

My sole motivation is to ensure everyone is treated fairly and equally under the law as a result of the police carrying out their duty without fear or favour.  Many fined for breaching lockdown rules will find this difficult to believe without further explanation from the Metropolitan Police.

High Court grants hearing for landmark case on sewage dumping backed by Good Law Project

 The High Court has given permission for a hearing against the Government’s Storm Overflows Discharges Reduction Plan, which allows water companies to continue dumping sewage into rivers and coastal waters for another three decades. Good Law Project is supporting the legal action, being brought by the Marine Conservation Society, Richard Haward’s Oysters, and Hugo Tagholm, a surfer and activist.

The hearing at the High Court will challenge the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Thérèse Coffey, over her department’s plan.

The Storm Overflows Discharges Reduction Plan was published in August last year and gives water companies a deadline of 2035 to reduce the amount of sewage flowing into bathing water and areas of ecological importance, but until 2050 to stop dumping sewage elsewhere.

The claimants want the Government to improve its plan and bring forward the deadlines for water companies to act and include stronger protections for coastal waters across the country.  

England has around 14,500 storm overflows in operation to stop sewers becoming overwhelmed. They allow a mixture of surface water and raw sewage to be discharged into rivers and coastal waters - but should only be used occasionally following exceptionally heavy rainfall.

The latest Environment Agency data shows that storm overflows are being used with alarming regularity. In 2021, storm overflows discharged untreated sewage 372,533 times over a period of 2.7 million hours.

The date for the hearing at the High Court has yet to be decided. 

Jo Maugham, Director of Good Law Project, said: 

"This could be the most consequential environmental law case in recent history. We contend - and the High Court now agrees the point is arguable - that the English common law contains a principle that the natural environment must be protected, must be held in trust, for future generations."

Sandy Luk, Chief Executive of Marine Conservation Society, said:

“We’re now one step closer to compelling the Government to re-write its Storm Overflows Reduction Plan, so that the ocean and its inhabitants really are protected from untreated sewage dumping. Raw sewage will continue polluting our seas until action is taken. Being granted permission to proceed with this case is an important milestone in achieving our vision for a cleaner, better protected and healthier ocean.”

Tom Haward, Operations Manager of Richard Haward’s Oysters and 8th generation oysterman, said:

“Having clean and safe waterways is something we shouldn't have to fight for or even ask the courts to consider. 

“But, in 2023, we are in that position. I'm happy the High Court has given permission for the case to be heard and  I hope it will be another step toward making water companies accountable - truly accountable - for their actions”. 

Surfer and activist, Hugo Tagholm, said:

“The sewage scandal is now headline news. The writing is on the wall for water companies. Their pollution that was for so long hidden in our rivers and streams now flows in full view of the public. A sign of decades of neglect and complacency. The blue spaces so important for wildlife, people and communities should not be treated as dumping grounds for these corporations. We should be free to swim, surf and enjoy our rivers and coastline without fear of sewage pollution.”

BREAKING: GOOD LAW PROJECT TO SUE OFGEM OVER PRICE CAP FAILURE

 From Good Law Project

Legal campaign group Good Law Project, Fuel Poverty Action, and the Highlands and Islands Affordable Homes Warmth Group have announced they are planning to sue the energy regulator Ofgem, over its failure to mitigate the impact of rising energy bills on consumers. 

 

This is likely to be the first legal action of its kind over the energy bills crisis, and others may join the action - including vulnerable individuals disproportionately impacted by Ofgem’s actions. 

 

In response to Ofgem’s announcement today that it is raising the price cap to an eye-watering £3,549, Jo Maugham, Director of Good Law Project said: 

 

The announcement today will devastate families. Just who and what is Ofgem for? Do not be fooled. This is a choice. And the choice they’ve made is to let low-income consumers and small businesses bear the brunt of this crisis.

 

We believe Ofgem can - and should do more. We intend to put the question before the High Court, and will ask for a fast-tracked timeline to reflect the urgency of this crisis.

 

The Ofgem announcement will push millions of people into poverty this winter and the average household bill up by £1,578 - an 80 per cent increase from the current cap. 

 

GLP will ask the High Court to ensure the regulator upholds its legal duties to, among other things, carry out an impact assessment before confirming the price cap increase, including assessing the disproportionate impact on elderly people, children and people with disabilities.

 

Good Law Project argues that Ofgem has the power to do more to protect vulnerable people and believes before raising the cap, Ofgem is legally required to:

• Provide evidence it has carried out a proper impact assessment
• Consider appropriate mitigation measures for the most vulnerable, including a lower social tariff.

In July, the campaign group wrote to Ofgem, expressing concern about its decision-making. We asked it to provide proof of its impact assessments. It failed to produce any such evidence. Last week GLP put the regulator on notice of formal legal action if it failed to uphold its duties. A formal response to the letter is expected today, but today’s announcement provides no indication that an impact assessment has been carried out.

Good Law Project issues judicial review after contracting authority ‘unlawfully’ awarded £70bn public sector net zero procurement process

 Good Law Project  has filed a judicial review against contracting authority East of England Broadband Network (E2BN) after it handed over a £70 billion procurement process to a Cornwall-based ‘micro-company’ specialising in education services.

 

E2BN’s ‘Everything Net Zero’ is a framework agreement that offers the UK’s entire public sector, from the NHS to local government offices, a way to award contracts even loosely connected to ‘climate’ issues without having to comply with the usual rules about public procurement. Despite covering up to £70 billion, management of the framework agreement has been handed over to just one company  - a consultancy called Place Group, listed by Companies House as a ‘micro-company’ run by two directors in Penzance, Cornwall, with net assets of just under £350,000.

 

Jo Maugham, Director of Good Law Project, said:

 

The drive to achieve Net Zero is one of the most important challenges the UK faces today.  Why was E2BN, ‘a regional broadband consortium’, allowed to write such a poor example of a framework agreement and to make a decision that could have such a far-reaching impact on the UK’s climate response? Why did they decide to outsource control over billions of pounds in emissions reductions contracts to the Place Group, a tiny company whose main experience seems to be in the education sector?  Why was Place Group the only company to submit a tender? These are vital questions the public deserves to have an answer to and which E2BN has so far refused to answer.

 

Good Law Project is bringing this action as E2BN’s decisions and conduct in respect of the Everything Net Zero Framework appear to be in breach of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. As it currently stands, it seems that billions of pounds worth of public contracts could be awarded by the Place Group to unspecified suppliers without open, transparent and fair competition. GLP has asked the Court to hold proceedings for a month to give E2BN another chance to provide proper answers.

 

In July, GLP along with Joanna Wheatley, Client Earth and Friends of the Earth successfully sued the Government over its strategy for delivering on its Net Zero targets, on the basis proposals were too vague and lacked enough detail.  GLP will continue to campaign for accountability and transparency where the Government’s approach to the climate crisis is concerned, including its procurement process.