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
I noticed near the beginning a reference to their receipt of a message of encouragement from Charlie Windsor – surely enough for any scientifically-inclined person to be very cautious in accepting anything stated at this “conference”. Does he still talk, I wonder, to the trees? Or wish that he were an article used hygienically by his mistress? No wonder Her Majesty will not contemplate abdication!
You are behind the times – Charles married Camilla years ago.
Yes, poor fellow. But I was referring to the time when his wish came to light, well before the nuptials.
Charles and Camilla, Ugh, but then Charles loves his nature’s animals including 4 legged ones.( I just wonder how many he shot in his younger days on Safaris.)
More on the Sands lecture here:
https://ipccreport.wordpress.com/2015/10/09/robin-guenier-on-philippe-sands/
Note the linked pdf by Guenier analysing the lecture.
More of the inimitable rhetoric flowing with more insights right off the cuff, from Lord Monckton’s first reaction over at WND
http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/10/dictatorships-goes-global/
“The subject that is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise, nor submit to, arbitrary measures.”
Junius
email sent to: enquiries@supremecourt.uk
Dear Sir or Madam
Can I please ask if this is a legitimate “case”?
https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/climate-change-and-the-rule-of-law.html
Can I also ask why is there was no alternative views voiced, considered, or even mentioned?
Best Regards
Can I also ask why is there was no alternative views voiced, considered, or even mentioned?
They (alternative views) were never invited?
This could become very interesting to watch being played out. A petition of this content will trigger some response, I think, related to oversight procedures of the judicial, as described at
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-the-government-and-the-constitution/jud-acc-ind/jud-conduct/
Watching, and waiting…
guidelines:
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Guidance/judicial_conduct_2013.pdf
complaint form:
https://webapps.judiciary.gov.uk/JCIO/complaintlink.do
Chapter three: Impartiality
3.1 A judge should strive to ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, maintains
and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants, in the impartiality of the
judge and of the judiciary.
3.2 Because the judge’s primary task and responsibility is to discharge the duties of office, it
follows that a judge should, so far as is reasonable, avoid extra-judicial activities that are likely to cause
the judge to have to refrain from sitting on a case because of a reasonable apprehension of bias or
because of a conflict of interest that would arise from the activity.
3.3 A specific application of that principle is that a judge must forego any kind of political activity
and on appointment sever all ties with political parties. An appearance of continuing ties such as
might occur by attendance at political gatherings, political fundraising events or through contribution
to a political party, should be avoided. The need for abstinence also involves not participating in
public demonstrations which, by associating the judge with a political viewpoint or cause, may
diminish his authority as a judge and create in subsequent cases a perception of bias. Where a close
member of a judge’s family is politically active, the judge needs to bear in mind the possibility that, in
some proceedings, that political activity might raise concerns about the judge’s own impartiality and
detachment from the political process.
3.4 Another application of the principle, though one difficult to define and apply in specific
situations, is the expression of views out of court that would give rise to issues of perceived bias or
pre¬judgment in cases that later come before the judge. This question is considered in more detail in
Section 8.2.
Given the nature of the meetings and their publication, it might well be that all UK Judges that attended the meeting were in violation of Chapter three: Impartiality and should be subject to complaint.
They should all be sacked and more thoughtful judges appointed.
Making a complaint
A complaint to the JCIO must be made within 3 months of the matter complained of. For example if the matter you wish to complain about occured on 10 April 20XX your complaint must reach the JCIO by 9 July 20XX.
A complaint to the JCIO must be made in writing. There are a number of ways that you can send it to us;
Send your complaint to us by post to the Judicial Conduct and Investigations Office 81 – 82 Queens building, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand London, WC2A 2LL
Use the on line complaint form from this website. Please use the button on the left hand side of this page
E Mail your complaint to mailto:inbox@jcio.gsi.gov.uk
Send your complaint by fax to 0207 073 4725.
It would be a serious loss of trust in US legal integrity if the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ever was involved a situation (not only just a climate change related situation) like the prima fascia prejudicial actions performed by the Supreme Court of England and Wales. The details of the prima fascia prejudicial actions are outlined by Christopher Monckton in his FOIA NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR INFORMATION.
Do any commenters on this thread who are keen followers of the detailed history of SCOTUS know of any actions on anything (not on just climate change) by SCOTUS that are as damaging to judicial integrity as the prima fascia prejudicial actions of the Supreme Court of England and Wales? I do not recall any such actions by SCOTUS.
John
Nor I.
SCOTUS does hold legal process related sessions. I was once the guest of honor at a dinner banquet in the Great Hall (the entrance to the familiar oral argument chamber chamber) at the end of a daylong symposium at the SC organized by the ABA. Justice Clarence Thomas gave me a set of gold SCOTUS cuff links after dinner. A thank you for a years volunteer work with the appellate section of the American Bar Association (state supremes, federal appeals judges only) on vexing civil procedure questions of court jurisdiction and venue in the then just emerging internet/ecommerce/cyberspace era. The symposium was mappiing out possible legal issues and technology perspectives, not providing ‘answers’.
The UK situation appears very different: legal ‘answers’ to non legal questions like AGW.
ristvan on October 17, 2015 at 1:10 pm
– – – – –
ristvan,
Your volunteer activities supporting those legal areas are an interesting resource for you to draw on. Thank you for telling us.
Even if it is true SCOTUS historical hasn’t committed prejudicial actions like the prima fascia prejudicial actions committed by the Supreme Court of England and Wales, still, the common citizen should keep close vigilant observation on SCOTUS in these frantic times of alarmist AGW advocacy.
John
Agree. And am. The UK thing is just shocking.
Outstanding!
Sadly the Just Us institute will blow Monckton off, continuing to practise F.U.D.
By doing so they will add themselves to the long list of government institutions cast into contempt by the CAGW scheme.
The base institutions of civilization are all being undermined from within.
That these “Learned Justices” should be playing with the bloated corruption that is the United Nations IPCC, demonstrates they have learned nothing.
Except contempt and ill will toward the common citizen.
Pretty stupid to expose your bias before you connive to use the courts to further the mass kleptocracy that CAGW is.
As noted by Cheifio ; The F.U factor is rising as the theft grinds all productive parties down, throw in this kind of blatant idiocy by our institutes and another powder keg is pushed toward the flames.
Never ascribe to malice what stupidity will explain?
+ many. ( and thanks for the language/ semantics, priceless).
A very well argued paper on why professor Sands is wrong.
https://ipccreport.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/notes-on-sands-lecture_ty.pdf
It’s by Robin Guinier. It is very good.
Anthony–how about posting it as a thread here?
Here is an extract from Guinier’s paper:
I wonder if the YouTube video has been edited already. I started watching it and in the beginning, the speaker (Lord Carnwath?) is thanking multiple people and organizations, at the 5:28 mark, the audio is suddenly cut when he states an organization for its “key role “… {snipped audio} …. “bank, and to the United Nations…….” .. The audio starts back up at 5:38.. 10 seconds are cut. What “Bank” provided funds to allow the judges to attend this event? Why was their name removed from the audio? Is there a transcript? Would there be a conflict of interest if there is some case before the court?
They state this is a public forum at 00:44, I would hope they would provide all information requested by Lord Monckton.
Well Done Lord Monckton. This is why I always supported Goddard from the very start!. They will only be moved/changed by Legal action. Same goes with the Shukla NSF, NOAA and NASA letters from the Congress (R Lamar Smith)
In defence of tedious speakers.
Well often very important maters were said in a boring manner, as you can see from this example:
WHILE there are many questions in science which have not as yet been by any means satisfactorily cleared up, there is in particular, as you, are well aware, much difficulty and much obscurity attaching to the inquiry with reference to the nature of the climate, an inquiry which is ennobling in the recognition which it affords of the nature of the changes, and also necessary for the regulation of science practices. The opinions of the many great scientists with regard to it conflict and vary to an extent which should be taken as strong evidence that the cause of their doing so is ignorance, and that the academics were wise in refusing to make positive assertions upon uncertain data. Is there anything, indeed, so discreditable as rashness, and is there anything rasher and more unworthy of the dignity and strength of character of a science than the holding of a false opinion, or the unhesitating defence of what has not been grasped and realised with proper thoroughness? In this inquiry, to give an instance of the diversity of opinion, the greater number of authorities have affirmed the existence of the natural changes; it is the most likely conclusion, and one to which we are all led to by the guidance of nature.
The above words (with only half a dozen changed) were spoken about 2050 years ago by Marcus Tullius Cicero.
I’d say very relevant.
The website is owned by a Privy group? https://www.jcpc.uk/
That makes sense. Outhouse judges. Full of shit.
Make that pedantic, tedious, boringly stuffy shit.
And I always thought that Privy/outhouse was only an expression used by die-hard Rebel Yankees.
Chris,
You probably read “…They indicate that we have gone well beyond the classical standards on the burden of legal proof, whether it be balance of probabilities, or beyond reasonable doubt, …”
However, they do not state exactly what this “legal proof” is supposed to be! Perhaps you can ask them? I’d love to see some actual evidence that man’s CO2 has caused any of the warming since the LIA, the warming that stopped 2 decades ago.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/professor-sands-lecture-on-climate-change-and-the-rule-of-law.pdf
what this “legal proof” is supposed to be!
====================
he quotes the IPCC as THE authority on such matters. He also mentions the Pope, who stands a beacon of wrongheaded decisions throughout the ages. And not to be outdone, a letter from another pillar of science, the end product of generations of dangerous inbreeding, HRH the Tampon of Wales.
CO2 has gone up. The world has gotten warmer. That’s all the proof they need, want, or are capable of understanding.
There has to e a reason intelligent people consistently lie. I can only conclude Agenda 21.
[No. Now, April 15? That is a reason (for the government) to lie. .mod]
“Hear, hear”…well said, Your Lordship, on behalf of all of us.
There was a gap in the audio, when the name [of] the bank sponsoring this hate-fest was read out. Did everyone else have that lacuna?
Which bank was it? If it was my bank, I will be at their offices next week, and demand to take my overdraft elsewhere……. 😉
R
The bank was the Asian Development Bank. Keep an eye on WUWT as more details of this scandal unfold.
Oh My. Asian Development Bank is in big for coal fired power in the second/third world. As the fear of AGW makes such investments politically impossible for others, ADB corners the market. So they encourage fear of CAGW in the first world, and the field is wide open for them everywhere else. Their potential clients have nowhere else to turn. Sweet.
Gonna hold you to that.
The Cloud Mystery by Svensmark, Shaviv and Veizer…
. . .Best explanation of climate change … IMHO
Thank you Makus for getting this front and centre. We have for 40 years been duped by the UN World Control mob and various Shamans. This video ought to be made compulsory viewing for all those foolish politicians who have been scammed by the Church of Climatology.
Surprised that Lord Monkton seemed unaware of the bona fides of his own legal system and its Supreme Court role in this symposium of rubbish.
For anyone who is interested in the above, “Cloud Mystery” documentary, this has been taken up by Jasper Kirkby, conducting further related experiments at CERN. Physicists are commonly very suspicious of confident assertions regarding “consensus” climate science. Whether they publicly admit it, or not.
So it’s interesting that this research has managed to survive the alarmist takeover of science.
Awesome video !!
I might add to all the comments above that it is not surprising that Phillipe Sands QC is the key witness – he come from MATRIX Chambers.!!.
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley:
That is a fine FOI request. Thankyou for providing it and please publicise whatever outcomes result.
Richard
Thanks, Christopher, Lord Monckton. You are fighting for our freedom.
Really, I see something sinister in the AGW movement, readily embraced by the extreme left.
Professor Head in Sands fails to mention this International Agreement:
============
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
Article 4.7:
“The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively
implement their commitments under the Convention … will take
fully into account that economic and social development and
poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the
developing country Parties.”
There is NO LEGAL obligation for developing countries to cut emission so long as there is poverty. The Paris convention would need to put emissions cuts ahead of poverty eradication, economic and social development. This includes China, India, etc. etc. etc.
The developed countries could cut emission to zero. Our economies grind to a halt and we freeze to death in winter. It would be a drop in the bucket. The control of emissions rest with the developing world, not the International Court of Justice.
[Fake email address. ~mod.]
Cody M,
You’re off-topic, and you don’t seem to understand that the Supreme Court in question is not anything like the Supreme Court in the U.S.
In the UK it is just an appeals court, and it was only established in 2005. It didn’t even get started until 2009. It was established — get this — because of a lack of transparency.
I won’t bother correcting your misinformation regarding the U.S. election. Wouldn’t do any good anyway, from the tone of your rant. But I am very happy that the SCOTUS ruled properly, and as a result the U.S. avoided an Algore disaster.
Nor is it anything like the Supreme Court in Canada, for that matter! But that aside, it is indisputably a very new kid on the U.K. “judicial” block. A fact which I believe is worth keeping in mind.
Ostensibly, this Court’s creation lies at the hands of … wait for it … the Chair of the only session of this – supposedly under Chatham House Rules – Conference, which was actually held in the illustrious Chamber, i.e. Lord Cornwath (former official fave of HRH Prince Charles – one who is not known for particularly rational or informed views on “climate change”).
In my respectful view, many of the questions posed by Lord Monckton have already been addressed in the overview provided by the University of Reading’s Prof. Chris Hilson, which he introduced as follows:
And if you check Hilson’s bio, background and credentials, I believe you will find that he is far more credible than either Lord Cornwath or the equally ill-informed and very superficial (albeit, perhaps too self-important for anyone’s good … least of all his own), Philippe Sands, Q.C., as I had noted in my own recent post pertaining to this gathering of the great and the good!
Consequently, in the grand scheme of things, I’m not entirely convinced that the questions posed by Lord Monckton, via his FOIA – even if answered – are likely to produce much that will send anyone into a state of “shock and/or awe” 😉
All of the above aside, what I found particularly surprising during the course of my investigations of this very new kid on the U.K. judicial block, was the number of appointees who’ve already made an exit therefrom. See: https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/former-justices.html . But I digress …
Considering the timing, duration – and limited number of participants – it seems to me that any costs that might be uncovered via Lord Monckton’s challenge will pale in comparison to those that are likely to accrue via the sponsors’ respective participation in the credibility-declining-by-the-day forthcoming Grande Gathering in Paris, i.e. the circus known as COP21. IMHO, it is this particular prize upon which we should relentlessly cast our questioning eyes!
I fully appreciate that the mileage of others may vary, but … well .. that’s the view from here 😉
This reminds me of Australia. The High Court has been accused in the past of trying to make laws instead of just interpreting the laws passed by Parliament. Most laws require expert review and input which is normally provided by the public service departments, but these ambitious legal eagles in the UKSC perhaps think that they know enough not to seek expert opinion. More supreme egos living off climate change mantra.