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
Climate science on trial:
Social Cost of Carbon on trial in Minnesota
The Spectator magazine carried a piece on its 20th October issue stating that Lord Carnwarth organised a conference at Kings College London with the title: `Adjudicating the Future Climate and the Rule of Law`. This also needs looking into as a blatant and flagrant misuse of his powers.
Lord M – Jonathan Sumption is an acquaintance of mine and I would love to know his opinion on this farrago. I have his address in France but not in UK – how do I write to the Supreme Court?
The address is on their website. I too know Jonathan Sumption – he’s a member of my club – but, precisely because I know him, it would not be right for me to approach him directly. I must go through the regular authorities. The Administrative Court, in its eventual consideration of the Supreme Court’s misconduct on judicial review, would not be pleased if I resorted to the same pally, all-old-boys-together routine in which Carnwath and Sands have unwisely and unlawfully indulged themselves.
“Off Topic” but RELEVANT to the thread.
Here is (verbatim) the article printed in The Sunday Herald (Scotland) 29th. June 2015 by Ivor Tiefenbrun. “Why Scotland needs to Get Real”.
[QUOTE START]
Indigenous businesses in Scotland are increasingly uncertain about their future prospects.
Until recently it was unimaginable that we would question whether the three hundred year old United Kingdom of Great Britain would survive.
Scotland’s contribution to this partnership has been enormous, and Scots have blossomed in every field of human endeavour, and led British achievements around the world. Everything about our history, philosophy and education was designed to prepare Scots for a global role. Yet now a vast block of our population have turned inwards, amidst a mass of contradictory aspirations.
Scotland wants to thrive and become more prosperous, and all of us would agree with that proposition. Yet some believe that we can do it by severing our closest connections, with England in particular, and the common market of the United Kingdom in general, despite the fact that it is responsible for the bulk of our trade, commercial, cultural and social intercourse. Yet these very same Separatists are committed to remain within an undemocratic European Union even if the U.K. as a whole decides, that the terms of continued membership are so disadvantageous that we would be better off outside a failing European Union which has an ever smaller share of British and world trade, to participate more fully in the far freer, larger and faster growing world beyond the E.U. where U.K. exports and trade are already greater, and the trading opportunities for Scotland are many times bigger.
The only way to make sense of such contradictions is to understand that the wide appeal of the Separatists’ policies and beliefs is driven by the enmity of many Scots towards Free Enterprise Capitalism and the English, in combination with a powerful preference for more Statist policies.
This is not an attractive prospect for most Scottish businesses as increased government interference in the economy, with more subsidies, regulations and higher taxes will all create increasingly disadvantageous differentials with both our immediate neighbours, and our global competitors.
Higher taxes on income, property, capital gains and corporations, and ever more public sector spending and welfare dependency can do nothing to increase Scotland’s wealth.
More and higher taxes will also not improve the circumstances of the poorest Scots as they can only result in slower growth, fewer employment opportunities and falling tax revenues, but especially because they do not address the fundamental reasons for income poverty.
Those responsible for the success of Scotland’s high performance specialist businesses upon which our country’s future depends have good cause to view their future with trepidation as do the young, bright and mobile who will find Scottish Nationalism far more remunerative in Vancouver or Sydney than it is every likely to be in Scotland.
The best and most promising Scottish businesses are already limited by skills shortages, and we are already seeing increased emigration of the most mobile and highly skilled, especially those who have a foothold, or ready access to a career, in England or beyond. Why, especially if you are an English consultant, work twelve hour shifts for a failing and unreformed Scottish National Health Service when you can earn more, and work fewer hours in a Health Service in England which for all its faults is steadily improving? Why, unless you are too settled to move, or a very committed Scottish Leftist or Nationalist, work in Scotland’s academia, science, research or industry when you can earn more, and pay lower taxes and have far better financial prospects and security in the rest of the U.K. or elsewhere?
Why commit yourself to a career, or invest your capital in Scotland when the outlook for earnings, income taxes, pensions, investment returns, social cohesion, family and personal career prospects and education all have such a high degree of uncertainty?
This is bad enough, before even considering the great herd of elephants in the room. The Leftist, Statist mentality dominates Scottish politics and academia, and they and the far too large and ever-expanding public and welfare sectors contribute little to the economy, and depend heavily for their sustenance, excesses and increasing expectations on the ever diminishing strength of the productive wealth generating part of the independent private sector that is not dependent on State largesse.
Many Scots do not just prefer Europe to England because of their Socialist inclinations, but actively dislike the English, and particularly the City of London, because they see it as a Capitalist, dog eat dog society focussed on materialism rather than displaying the alleged inclusive concerns that some claim to manifest for the ever-expanding numbers of poor, cow’rin, tim’rous Scots who cannae get a job, or help themselves from being welfare dependents.
These same self-anointed caring Scots have no regard or concern whatsoever for those working the hardest in the private sector who carry the financial wealth creating burden for the State’s counterproductive increasingly indiscriminate ruinous largesse.
The notion that men should be free to sell their own labour and be responsible for their own destiny rather than be subject to the dictates of the State or any other collective mechanisms that direct their efforts and sequester the fruits of their labour, has transformed the world for the better. Wealth creation depends on the sanctity of private property, savings and family inheritance, free enterprise and freethinking individuals who accept responsibility for their productive endeavours and their own personal lives. Paradoxically they are the truly independent and empathetic people, and the total antithesis of Socialist Separatists who are driven by Nationalism, and whose collectivist political objectives are fundamentally totalitarian. Because so-called progressive Scots think that they know what is best for everyone, they seek to penalise success in the name of the poor and the underprivileged. They believe that national wealth can be secured and redistributed at the expense of individual wealth, and fail to understand that failure is guaranteed when you limit success.
Real Scottish businesses have every reason to be concerned because we should be backing winners for the greatest gains and urgently need to stop rewarding failure. It is little wonder that the private business sector and the ambitious highly skilled are demonstrating anxiety about our increasingly uncertain future. Let’s hope our misguided political class soon start to ponder how they can address the destructive false expectations they have raised. Scotland needs to get real.
Ivor Tiefenbrun is a Scottish manufacturer [QUOTE END]