Be ready to help fund the HDV appeal as legal action continues

From Stop the HDV Campaign


Most readers will now know about the judgement handed down by Justice Ouseley on 8 February which of course disappointed us in this first outcome, in refusing to find in favour of our four grounds against the HDV. However it is clear from the judgement that not only are there strong grounds for going to the Court of Appeal but that much of our argument, on consultation for instance is fully justified, and the judge admits that had Haringey consulted directly on the HDV its ability to be continued may well have been quite different.

Rowan Smith of Leigh Day says “This judgment, although bitterly disappointing, is very timely, given the recent controversy surrounding the involvement of private companies in the delivery of public services. The headline point is that the court agreed with us that the Council was under a duty to consult the residents of Haringey about the establishment of the HDV, and just as importantly that such a consultation would have made a difference. Seemingly, it is a technicality around the date when that duty arose which has deprived those residents of the opportunity to express their views, which are likely to have been overwhelming against the proposals. The judge also recognised the merit in, and gave extensive consideration to, our argument concerning whether the Council has the legal power to set up the HDV as an LLP. Our client, the Stop HDV campaign group, will appeal this judgment against the political back drop of the resignation of the Council's leader, the Labour Party's [NEC's] recommendation that the plans are halted, as well as the opposition party's call for a vote to stop the HDV. Our intention is to now write to the Council to ask for confirmation that contracts with Lendlease will not be signed until the conclusion of the appeal.” 

The appeal is now being prepared for submission in seven days, and it is vital for other places as well as Haringey that the higher court can examine how a Cabinet can get away with such a blitzkrieg approach to redevelopment, undisclosed financial risk, and sale of local authority assets, without due consideration by its own Council, and proper involvement of local residents in their own future. 

There will very shortly then be another round of crowdfunding required as costs of the first action have been met, and lawyers have worked very hard as their main impulse to help this case. So please be ready for this and let others know when it comes. The political battle has of course come round very much in favour of stopping the HDV, but it remains really important for the future of social housing and of Councils decision-making - local democracy in fact - that this goes the legal distance  to reverse this means of destroying communities.

 

Greens in legal challenge to Government's drone 'Kill policy'

-->  

Washinton demonstration against drones

Members of the British Parliament are threatening legal action to force the UK Government to come clean over its ‘targeted killing’ of people in countries where Britain is not at war.

The challenge comes in response to the Prime Minister’s recent announcement of a US-style programme, in which covert strikes are carried out, commonly by drones, as part of the ‘War on Terror.’  A combination of faulty intelligence and a lack of safeguards has seen hundreds of civilians killed by the US drone programme in countries such as Pakistan and Yemen.

Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, supported by human rights charity Reprieve and law firm Leigh Day, are today demanding answers on whether the Government has formulated a targeted policy, and if so what that policy it is, and whether it is legal.
A Letter Before Action (LBA) sent by Leigh Day on behalf of Caroline Lucas MP and Baroness (Jenny) Jones highlights the lack of Parliamentary approval for the UK’s adoption of the new targeted killing policy; a lack of consistency in the justifications provided by Government ministers; and an overall lack of transparency.

The Prime Minister described Britain’s adoption of the US-style programme as a “new departure” for the country, but has refused to disclose details on how such strikes are governed or justified.

The LBA states: “The Claimants condemn terrorism. The Government is right to dedicate resources to ensure the British public is protected. Yet those planning or involved in such acts must be dealt with in accordance with the law. If any pre-authorised and targeted killing can be lawful, they must be carried out under a formulated and published Targeted Killing Policy which ensures transparency, clarity and accountability for such use of lethal force.”
The same lack of transparency in the US has seen claims by the CIA that its drone progamme had resulted in zero civilian casualties go largely unchallenged, until investigation by Reprieve and other organisations showed that civilian casualties – including children – were in fact in the hundreds. 

Caroline Lucas MP said: “The Government appears to have adopted a ‘Kill Policy’ in secret –without Parliamentary debate or the prospect of proper independent scrutiny. Sanctioning lethal drone attacks on British citizens is a significant departure from previous policy, as well as potentially unlawful, and it’s deeply concerning that it has occurred without appropriate oversight.  By refusing to publish the legal basis for these attacks, the Government has created a legal and accountability vacuum. We need to be able to determine whether the attacks – and what they signify in terms of Government policy - meet the robust conditions set out in international and domestic law.

“I am part of bringing this case because if we want to be effective at countering terrorism then we must ensure we act lawfully. There are serious questions to be answered about the legality of the strikes, as well as the lack of robust oversight.  Given the evidence from the USA, where former heads of defence and others have called their secret use of drones a ‘failed strategy’, it’s crucial that the UK’s actions to date and moving forward are subject to proper debate and scrutiny, particularly as its apparent new ‘Kill Policy’ goes beyond even what the US has been doing.”

"An effective strategy to end terrorism must learn from US drone policy which former senior military and intelligence staff have said creates a 'tremendous amount of resentment inside populations' and is deeply counterproductive."

Kat Craig, legal director at international human rights charity Reprieve said: “The Government has said it has the power to kill anyone, anywhere in the world, without oversight or safeguards.  This is a huge step, and at the very least the Prime Minister should come clean about his new kill policy.  Instead, we are seeing the UK follow the US down the dangerous path of secret, unaccountable drone strikes – a policy which has led to the deaths of hundreds of civilians in Pakistan and Yemen, without making us any safer. Parliament and the public deserve to know what is being done in their name.  It is disappointing that MPs are having to turn to the courts to extract even the most basic information on a policy which the Prime Minister himself has described as a ‘new departure’ for the country.”

Baroness Jones said: “The Government can't argue that they are defending British values of democracy and the rule of law if they suddenly invent a new 'bomb to kill' policy which ignores all those democratic traditions and safeguards. If our Government is saying it will kill certain individuals,  outside of armed conflict, whenever the opportunity arises, then you have to ask several obvious questions.

“Which countries do we, and don't we, apply this to? Who decides that these people are guilty and how is that evidence challenged and proven without judicial oversight? If it is seen as likely that the individuals pose a direct and imminent threat to our safety, but remain at large for six months, or a year, when is the 'immediacy' reassessed? How many individuals are we targeting and why are we applying a death sentence to them rather than others? The Government need to not only answer these key questions, they need to be prepared to have their answers debated in public and challenged.