Open letter by Monckton of Brenchley

Paul Bridgland, Departmental Records Officer paul.bridgland@supremecourt.uk

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parliament Square, London

SW1P 3DB 16 October 2015

Sir,

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000: NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

Supreme Court pantomime of hate on climate change, 17-19 September 2015

This is a request in terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in connection with the partisan political rally on climate change that is said to have been held in various courtrooms including Nos. 1 and 2 of the Supreme Court of England and Wales at Parliament Square, London, from 17-19 September 2015, with the active participation of at least one of the Supreme Court’s justices and the presumed approval or at least consent of the Supreme Court as a whole. This event was drawn to my attention by various persons profoundly concerned that, on a matter of current public and political controversy, the Supreme Court should have seen fit to take sides openly, in flagrant offence against both of the principles of natural justice recognized in the laws of England and Wales, and also in contravention of the obligation of strict neutrality on matters of current political contention that is a self-evident sine qua non for the Supreme Court and anyone purporting to serve as one of its Justices.

However, there remains the probability that the event did not take place and that the YouTube record of it, together with various web links and documents about it, are fake. This request is intended to discover whether – per impossibile – the Supreme Court’s pantomime of hate indeed took place and, if so, at whose instigation and at what cost, and who was approached for funding, and who agreed to fund the event, and how much was paid and by whom, and how much was spent, and by whom, and on whom or on what, and whether the passages of overtly and nakedly partisan political hate-speech attributed to one of the justices and to an invited lecturer were in fact uttered by them.

Judicial review of the administrative decisions of various departments of government, including the Supreme Court of England and Wales and certain of its personnel and justices, to stage, condone, fund or participate in this repugnant and unlawful event is in active contemplation. Questions about whether the Supreme Court should have allowed its Justices to turn it into a Christmas pantomime theatre, or whether the Court can now legitimately hear any case touching upon climate or the environment without falling foul of both principles of natural justice (on the evils of manifest judicial prejudice and of refusal to hear both sides of a case, videte Denning MR in, respectively, Metropolitan Properties Co. (F.G.C.) Ltd. V. Lannon [1968] EWCA Civ 5 [1969] 1QB 577 and in Kanda v. The Federation of Malaya [1962] AC 322 at 327), will be directed to the relevant departments and personnel in due course. First, however, it is necessary to ascertain the facts.

None of the questions to which replies are now sought is a question concerning the details of any case that has been or is before the Supreme Court. Nor do any of the numerous other exemptions and get-out clauses at sections 35-36 of the FOI Act apply. Therefore, any refusal on the part of the Court to provide any or all of the requested information may be referred to the Information Commissioner for determination, or may form part of the eventual judicial review of the administrative decisions of the Court or of other departments or agencies of government in respect of this partisan political rally held at the Court. I am making this letter public.

QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF ENGLAND AND WALES

1. Please state whether the Supreme Court in fact held a conference at its premises in Parliament Square, London, or at any other place, during September 2015, under the title Climate Change & the Rule of Law or under any suchlike title or with any suchlike theme; and, if so, between what dates and at what places any such conference was held.

2. Please confirm that the web page at https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/climate-change-and-the-rule-of-law.html and all web pages dependent thereupon are official web pages of the Supreme Court of England and Wales, and that the content of the web pages is official content approved by the Supreme Court of England and Wales, and explain in what fashion and by whom the decision was taken to place and populate the said web pages and otherwise to publicize the event, and under whose ultimate control the web pages are managed.

3. In particular, please confirm that the video of part of the Supreme Court’s propaganda event at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eef1tK8mtEI is a complete and accurate record of the segment of the event that it purports to cover.

4. Please supply copies or, where copies are unavailable, records of all correspondence or conversations in connection with the climate-change conference alleged to have taken place at the Supreme Court in September 2015. In particular, but without limitation, please supply copies or records of all correspondence or conversations between or among any of the Justices or other personnel, servants or agents of the Supreme Court of England and Wales, any of the participants, any government departments and any suppliers or contractors.

5. Please supply a complete list of all participants in the conference, indicating all who spoke, with all records of their remarks and all transcripts of the proceedings.

6. Please supply copies of all agendas, working papers and other documentation of whatever kind produced by or sent, given, transmitted or otherwise made available to or by any of the Justices or other personnel, servants or agents of the Supreme Court of England and Wales, any of the participants, any government departments and any suppliers or contractors.

7. Please state at whose initiative the conference was staged, and supply all relevant correspondence or records of conversations concerning the proposal to stage the conference.

8. Please provide the names of all Justices or other personnel of the Supreme Court who participated in the decision to stage the conference, and state on what date and in what manner the decision was reached, and provide the names of all parties who were consulted by the Supreme Court or any of its servants or agents before the decision was reached, together with any copies or records of correspondence or conversations in relation to the consultations leading to the decision, and to the decision itself.

9. Please provide the names of all Justices or other personnel of the Supreme Court who disagreed with the decision to stage the conference, together with any copies or records of correspondence or conversations in which they declared or indicated their concerns.

10. Please provide a list of all departments or other entities or persons who were approached with requests for funding, and supply the names of those who made the funding requests and of those to whom the requests were made, together with copies or records of all correspondence or conversations in connection with funding the conference between or among any of the Justices or other personnel, servants or agents of the Supreme Court of England and Wales, any of the participants, any government departments and any suppliers or contractors.

11. Please provide full and complete accounts for the conference, including without limitation the sources, amounts and dates of all tranches of funding for the conference, a full account of all income and expenditure, a full list of all honoraria, expenses or other sums paid to participants or others attending or present at the conference, and copies of all correspondence or conversations concerning any financial aspect of the conference.

12. Please state whether a person named as “Lord Carnwath” is a Justice of the Supreme Court.

13. If “Lord Carnwath” is a Justice of the Supreme Court, please state whether “Lord Carnwath” was present at the conference, and please provide all documentation to, from or concerning him or any agent or servant of his in connection with any aspect of the conference.

14. If “Lord Carnwath” is a Justice of the Supreme Court, please state the annual remuneration, pension, expenses and other sums or emoluments paid to “Lord Carnwath” out of public funds in each of the years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 a) in respect of his function as a Justice of the Supreme Court; and b) in respect of any other matters, such other matters to be specified and the amounts quantified.

15. If “Lord Carnwath” is a Justice of the Supreme Court, please supply copies or records of all correspondence or conversations in each of the years 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 between him and the United Nations Environment Program that have been or are filed at the Supreme Court, together with accounts of all honoraria, expenses or other emoluments or remuneration whatever paid to or received by “Lord Carnwath” or any of his servants or agents by the United Nations Environment Program or any of its servants or agents.

16. Please state whether “Lord Carnwath” was present at the conference; if so in what capacity and at whose invitation; and whether at any time during the conference he uttered the following words: “President Obama has said we are the first generation to feel the impact of climate change and the last generation that can do something about it. On that basis, the forthcoming Paris negotiations under the UN Climate Change Convention are a crucial test of our ability as a global community to address those challenges. The intention is that the commitments which emerge from those negotiations should have legal force.”

17. Please state whether “Philippe Sands QC” was present at the conference; if so in what capacity and at whose invitation; and whether at any time during the conference he uttered the following words: “The International Court of Justice or International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea could be asked, for example, to confirm (as a scientific matter) that emissions reductions are needed – nationally and globally – to stay below the globally agreed temperature threshold of 2 degrees Celsius. As I noted at the outset, there is a broad emerging consensus on many of these factual matters, but they remain subject to challenge in some quarters, including by scientifically qualified, knowledgeable and influential individuals, and the courts could play a role here in finally scotching those claims.”

18. If “Philippe Sands QC” was present at the conference, please state whether at any time during the conference he uttered the following words: “The court has a potentially significant role to play in helping the world understand and decide on the science of climate change and to recognize that the room for real doubt has disappeared.”

19. Please state whether any Justice or official or servant or agent of the Supreme Court has demurred at remarks such as those of “Lord Carnwath” or “Philippe Sands QC” and provide any record or copy of any such demurrer.

20. Please provide a complete list of all cases concerning climate, the environment or other matters connected in any way with the subject-matter of the conference that are currently before the Supreme Court of England and Wales, and state what, if any, provisions of law or administrative procedure exist to provide an alternative court of final appeal on matters, such as climate and environment, on which the Supreme Court, both collectively and in the person of one of its Justices, has acted blatantly and bizarrely in such a fashion as to indicate an open and malicious political prejudice and is accordingly parti pris.

Yours faithfully,

Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Share this: Print

Email

Twitter

Facebook

Pinterest

LinkedIn

Reddit



Like this: Like Loading...