Watch the UK Supreme Court wriggle, then help it come clean

Britain’s highest court apologizes for breaking the law but dodges questions about its widely-broadcast September 2015 climate-change propaganda event urging national and international courts to “scotch” the “claims” of skeptical climate scientists and researchers.

Guest essay by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley 

A month ago I sent a Freedom of Information request to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in London, asking it 20 questions pertinent to its staging of a pantomime of hate against skeptical scientific researchers in September 2015. The court should have replied by 12 November but did not reply. I gave it two working days’ grace and then wrote asking to be informed of its procedure for complaints about its breach of the law of the land in not replying by the statutory deadline.

clip_image002

Photo: The UK Supreme Court

If a public authority is in the wrong and receives FOIA questions about its wrongdoing, its response usually follows a set pattern. First, the authority will wait until the expiry of the four-week deadline for substantive replies to questions, to see whether the questioner is persistent enough to ask again. Then, if the questioner is leech-like, it will respond saying that too much information has been requested and that the cost of providing it exceeds the statutory $1000 limit.

The Supreme Court replied apologizing for its delay. The few answers it provided were given outside the scope of the Act. Its reason for not answering most of the questions it refused to answer was that providing an answer would be too expensive.

Their Lordships are wriggling like stuck pigs. It is, of course, a very serious matter for the highest court in the land to be caught out breaking the law by not replying to a freedom-of-information request within the statutory deadline, so the stuck pigs have very red faces beneath their judicial perukes.

The “It-costs-too-much” dodge is often used, as here, to provide none of the documentary material requested, even where – as with the answer to question 5 about the list of participants – it would be a simple and inexpensive matter to copy the attendance register and send the copy to me. In failing thus to act, the Supreme Court remains in breach of the law.

Likewise, questions 4 and 6, asking for copies of all correspondence, agendas, working papers and other documentation about the conference held by the personnel, servants or agents of the Supreme Court, could have been rapidly dealt with by a round-robin email asking all of them to send copies to the freedom of information office. Here, too, the Supreme Court is in manifest and continuing breach of the law.

clip_image004

The Museum of Paleoarchaeology

Here is where you can help. If you are willing to send an FOIA request to the Court and then send the response to me, please email me (monckton [at] mail.com) and let me know you are willing to help.

I do not intend to let the Supreme Court off the hook. But, before I write to the president of the court with proposals for rectification of the prejudice demonstrated by one of its justices and by the court’s chosen lecturer during the widely-broadcast propaganda event staged in Courtrooms 1 and 2, I shall need the information the court is at present doing its unlawful worst not to provide.

The court’s largely wrigglesome reply to my 20 questions is below.

clip_image006

London, 18 November 2015

Dear Lord Monckton,

Thank you for your letter of 16 October 2015 in which you asked for information from the UK Supreme Court relating to the Climate Change and the Rule of Law symposium.

You subsequently wrote to me on 15 November 2015 pointing out that I had missed the deadline for replying to your request and asking “to be informed of the Supreme Court’s procedure, if any, for complaints about its non-compliance with the Act”. I am very sorry for not replying on time. This was due entirely to an oversight on my part and I hope you will accept my apologies for this. If you are dissatisfied with our handling of your request, details of how to request an internal review are set out at the end of this letter.

Your request has been handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I can confirm that we hold some information relevant to your request.

I am sorry to inform you that, from my preliminary assessment of your request, it is clear that I will not be able to answer your request in its current format.

In order to provide you with the information on the scale that you have requested would require attempting to retrieve the email accounts of some staff who no longer work for the Supreme Court, and then searching those accounts to locate, retrieve and extract information relevant to your request. I estimate that this will exceed the cost limits set out under section 12 of the Act.

Section 12 of the Act makes provision for public authorities to refuse requests for information where the cost of dealing with them would exceed the appropriate limit, which for central government is set at £600. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 3.5 working days in determining whether the Department holds the information, locating, retrieving and extracting the information.

As your request is widely framed, I estimate that it will take us in excess of 3.5 working days to determine appropriate material within the scope of your request, and locate, retrieve and extract that information.

You may wish to narrow the scope of your request in order to try and bring it within the cost limit, by being more specific about which information you wish to receive, including any dates or periods of time which are relevant.

However, to be helpful, I will attempt to answer those questions where the information is readily available. I should point out that this information is provided outside the terms of the Act.

I should begin by explaining that the Supreme Court did not host the whole symposium. This event was organized by King’s College, London, with the support among others of HM Government and the Journal of Environmental Law. The Supreme Court’s involvement involved hosting one element of the event, a public lecture by Philippe Sands QC which considered the challenges faced by courts in adjudicating cases related to climate change.

I will answer your questions in the order that you raise them.

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.

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom hosted a public lecture during the legal recess as one aspect of a wider three-day symposium (17-19 September) organized by King’s College, London, with the support among others of HM Government and the Journal of Environmental Law. The symposium was entitled Climate Change and the Rule of Law and more details can be found at kcl.ac.uk/law/newsevents/climate-courts/index.aspx.

2. Please confirm that the web page at 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, and that the content of the web pages is official content approved by the Supreme Court, 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.

We so confirm. Ben Wilson, Head of Communications, drafted the material in consultation with Lord Carnwath and the material was uploaded shortly after the public lecture.

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.

We do not recognize the description “propaganda event”, but the YouTube link you include is an unedited version of the event, and represents the only part of the symposium which took place at the Supreme Court.

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, any of the participants, any government departments and any suppliers or contractors.

Please see the paragraphs above relating to section 12 of the Act.

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.

Please see the paragraphs above relating to section 12 of the Act. You will also note that the event was not organized by the UK Supreme Court.

However, details of those who were speakers or panel members at the event can be found at the following websites:

supremecourt.uk/news/climate-change-and-the-rule-of-law.html

kcl.ac.uk/law/newsevents/climate-courts/index.aspx

walker-institute.ac.uk/news/Climate_change_rule_of_law_Sept2015/report.htm

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, any of the participants, any government departments and any suppliers or contractors.

Please see the paragraphs above relating to section 12 of the Act. You will also note that the event was not organized by the UK Supreme Court.

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.

Please see the paragraphs above relating to section 12 of the Act. You will also note that the event was not organized by the UK Supreme Court.

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.

The former Chief Executive (Jenny Rowe) and President of the Supreme Court (Lord Neuberger) were both aware of the plans and the former granted permission for the public lecture to be hosted here (use of the Court as an event venue is an administrative rather than judicial decision). Permission was granted orally during the spring of 2015.

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.

No such records exist.

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, any of the participants, any government departments and any suppliers or contractors.

Please see the paragraphs above relating to section 12 of the Act. You will also note that the event was not organized by the UK Supreme Court.

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.

The Supreme Court holds no such records as it did not organize the symposium. The total cost to the Supreme Court was £775. This was to cover the cost of a broadcast engineer to operate the court cameras and publish the film afterwards, to ensure the event was as open to as wide as possible a public audience. No overtime or additional security costs were incurred by the Court.

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

Lord Carnwath of Notting Hill was sworn in as a Justice of the Supreme Court in May 2012.

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.

Lord Carnwath attended the whole symposium, which was held during the legal recess.

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.

Lord Carnwath’s salary since appointment to the Supreme Court is as follows: 2015/16 £213,125; 2014/15 £211,015; 2013/14 £208,926; 2012/13 £206,857.

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.

Please see the paragraphs above relating to section 12 of the Act. However, it might also help, in the event you want to make a further freedom-of-information request, if I explain that judicial office-holders are not covered by the provisions of the Act and, as such, any information they hold is not accessible under the terms of the Act.

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.”

Lord Carnwath attended the whole symposium, at the invitation of the organisers and as a senior judge with an interest in environmental law and as a member of the UNEP International Advisory Council on Environmental Justice. The video you have referred to above is a full record of the public lecture and quotes can be checked against that footage.

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.”

Philippe Sands QC was present for various elements of the symposium: the Supreme Court is only in a position to confirm his attendance at the public lecture he gave on 17 September 2015. He was invited by the organisers. The video above is a full record of the public lecture and quotes can be checked against that footage.

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.”

The video above is a full record of the public lecture and quotes can be checked against that footage.

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.

No such records exist.

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, 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.

No cases related to climate change are currently lodged with the Supreme Court for consideration. Statute offers no provision for an alternative court of appeal as set out in your question.

As part of our obligations under the Freedom of Information Act, the UK Supreme Court has an independent review process. If you are dissatisfied with this response, you may write to request an internal review. The internal review will be carried out by someone who did not make the original decision, and they will reassess how the Department handled the original request. If you wish to request an internal review, please write or send an email.

If you remain dissatisfied after an internal review decision, you have the right to apply to the Information Commissioner’s Office under Section 50 of the Act.

Advertisements

155 thoughts on “Watch the UK Supreme Court wriggle, then help it come clean

    • Yes, he is in at least a small amount of danger. However, I believe he has chosen to be so. I admire this.

  1. However, it might also help, in the event you want to make a further freedom-of-information request, if I explain that judicial office-holders are not covered by the provisions of the Act and, as such, any information they hold is not accessible under the terms of the Act.

    That’s actually a good reason not to answer that question, legally speaking.

    • That seems a pretty comprehensive reply.
      Twenty questions was a Lot to ask in the first place and was always going to fall far outside the costs that govt departments lay down for foia requests.
      With the new information outlined in the letter in reply Why not now ask just 4 or 5 short pertinent questions central to your case and see what the result is?
      Tonyb

      • Perhaps. But a game-designer red flag has popped up in my head. It appears to be quite plausible, a priori, that the requested information is deliberately placed in a position where it is not to be provided in accordance to Section 12.
        If it had been archived, expense would have been minimal, and Section 12 would not have applied. Therefore information the responder does not wish to be released will not be archived, but dispersed in as expensive a manner as operationally feasible.
        This is a serious design flaw in the act. It should specify that providing the information requested, if properly archived beforehand, must exceed the given cost limitation.

      • EMJ, a good red flag. But likely useless, as the burden of proof on costsmis apparently shifted from enquiree (alleging same) to the imquiror. A defective statute, perhaps deliberately so. Most governments only want to pretend transparency. Not deliver same. Witness the US equivalents. Clear laws, yet NOAA evades.

      • Both are good points but it must be remembered that British Govt institutions tended to be inherently secretive in the past centuries and the original FOI Act was considered revolutionary when it first got on the statute books and the successive govts have been trying to rein it in ever since.
        If I wanted to get a comprehensive reply to a request to a govt dept I would ask 4 or 5 focused questions not twenty of them.
        tonyb

    • Ah, Just standard-issue Robes of Protection +1.
      They do not appear to be permitted to wear armor or carry shields, and may be armed only with hammers.
      What could go wrong?

      • And a Bag of Holding.
        They’re probably loaded with cloaks of invisibility, rings of flying, girdle of ogre strength, and likely a mordenkainen faithful hound for when they sleep with their lootz.

  2. This court complicity matches recent extremist events for shaking the foundations of the social system. That takes a lot of nerve and isolationist thought pattern to undertake.

    • I suppose. Maybe. But I have studied much history, and never once have I encountered a time and a place where something or someone wasn’t shaking the foundations of the social system. Or just plain dictating (with widely varied results).
      Melord is playing a very interesting game, here. It has rules. Real ones and unwritten ones. He is pressing these rules to obtain as much information as he is able. He is, in effect, demanding that the guards guard the guards honestly. He is stripping away the veneer and demonstrating how real or non-real FoI is when the tables are turned.

  3. I have read much better evasions and dodging of fact in many climate paper abstracts. That reality, of such incompetent dissemblance, is strangely comforting.

  4. The UK Establishment has a pathological loathing of having its dubious machinations exposed.
    In their eyes, they are above the law and us proles should bloody well realise it. I still bear the deep scars of going up against the UK Establishment, for unless you have very deep pockets you will get totally stitched up.
    The UK Supreme Court certainly does not expect to have its actions challenged by those it considers to be irrelevant and irreverent riff raff.
    So got for it Lord Moncton, twist the knife.

    • I know little about the UK’s, but the poobahs who make up the US’s establishment loathe having their pathological machinations exposed. For good reasons too, which happen to correlate well with the number of lampposts on the streets that they frequent.

  5. The teaching moment here is that no amount of history, tradition, pomp, or regalia covers up or prevents in any way the day to day test of good or bad decisions by the “responsible” group in charge. It is always a new day for judgement and responsibility.

  6. Why am I always amazed when exceedingly successful and apparently supremely intelligent human beings act in ways that completely undermines their basic credibility in their fields of supposed expertise. Like the UK Supreme Court, the RICO 20, Jagadish Shukla, Peter Gleick, etc.
    My mind boggles at the abject stupidity of these people.

  7. Lord Christopher,
    Is there such legislation in Great Britain that substantially resembles the RICO act in the USA? If so I suspect that the double-speaking colluders in justice are assembling devious arguments to know you carnally in the posterior. N’est pas oui?

  8. Procedure is to appeal to them.
    When (note when) it is rejected you go to the ICO.
    This “freedom” is about to be curtailed because uk.gov and the hangers-on wish to remove a lot of it.

  9. And so we see “the long march through the institutions” continue ever onwards, as prescribed by the socialist grand strategy (and Agenda 21?).

    • You put your finger in the central issue, David. Rule of law requires a standard of judicial impartiality. As soon as judges become prejudiced, law becomes a sham and courts a mockery. When there is no legal redress against abuse of power, the way to revolution is opened. These justices, and Philippe Sands in particular, play with all-consuming fire.

      • ” Felflames
        November 20, 2015 at 2:21 am
        Perhaps the Justices have forgotten why the Lady in the blindfold ”
        Except the lady in the blindfold does NOT wear a blindfold. Please not pictures of “Justice” on the “Old Bailey” more correctly called “The Central Criminal Court”.
        There is an old saying “justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done”. Perhaps the Justices of the Supreme Court will be making a visit to the Bailey, but using the dock rather than the bench.

  10. Thanks, Chris, for your further illumination and dissection of the absolute sh*te that still so pervades our formerly once-capable country. Arrogant, parasitical self-serving w*nkers wherein logicality and decency is abundantly absent…
    My, how they truly (really) love themselves.

  11. The court addressing you as “Lord Monckton” should put to rest the left’s attacks upon your title.

  12. Your paltry 20 concise questions breached the $1000 ceiling!! Unbelievable! What a sham!
    Could it be that they had real work to do instead of entertaining time wasters?
    [we often think the same thing about moderating your snarky and mostly pointless commentary here -mod]

  13. So if this is a public lecture hall featuring attacks on science fact checking, then it could also be a Mosque with hate speech and intolerance educational seminars by extension.

  14. From a RealClearScience article about the extinction of particle supercolliders:
    “Some of the wilder predictions of the more bizarre theories, such as string theory, may never be tested. This of course brings us to a fair but separate debate: What’s the point of a theory that makes no testable predictions?”
    Indeed.

    • Brains356 rem acu tetigit. Popper’s masterwork on the logic of scientific enquirer makes it repeatedly plain that a notion that is not falsifiable by testing is not of interest to science, it is merely a guess.

  15. Break your request up into manageable chunks. That is how we did the climategate FOIA.
    for example… you asked for mail , and they responded that some people dont work there.
    So have readers do FOIA for mails from people who work there currently.
    Many people make this mistake with FOIA and draft them like discovery requests..
    you have to play the game better.

  16. Who is Philippe Sands QC? Who are the clients he has appeared for, and in what kind of cases? In short, does he have any ‘previous’?
    Is there any precedent for his belief that a relevant case brought before the UK Supreme Court would give it “a role here in scotching those claims” (i.e.those which challenge the ‘consensus’), or “a potentially significant role” in helping the world to understand and decide on the science of climate changes and to recognise that the room for real doubt has disappeared”, or whatever was said for the tape?
    A naive and optimistic voice in my head says: if the UKSC was given all the facts – let’s say, if a “green” group challenged an aspect of government policy that they thought disregarded the “consensus” (fat chance there is of that, though!) – at least one of the judges could decide either that they were not convinced, which would do, or that they positively disagreed, which would be even better.
    But that outcome would require a more organised defence than any government department would knowingly put together, given that they are all in thrall to climatescientology.
    I’d also advise his lordship to take professional advice on how to construct an FOIA request that can’t be brushed off so easily.
    Go after facts, for what you know should be on record, rather than casting your net too widely – you can always follow up if you get a bite. Focus on asking straight questions, with enough background to explain the context but as little personal grandstanding as possible.
    And there’s no point wasting space on long quotes when what you want to know, but may not be able to get through FOIA, is:
    – Was UKSC aware of what Sands was going to say?
    – does it endorse his vision of its possible role in such matters? and
    – does it have any concerns that allowing its premises to be used for such an event may give the impression that it was aware and does endorse Sands’s views?
    (PS for non-Brits, a QC is a kind of senior lawyer qualified to argue cases in higher courts.)

    • Issue. Under common law (UK, US, Canada…) appellate courts decide matters of law only. They do not decide matters of fact. Those are decided by juries, trial judges, or by ‘agencies delegated by law’ in the US) at the first trial level only. And the whatever fact results must be accepted as ‘true’ by appelate courts. Essence of Mass. v. EPA, sue and settle green strategy. The exception is if the ‘trial’ level had some fact determining procedural law defect. Then that is a matter of law, not fact. Essence of how SCOTUS overturning the EPA mercury rules this year.

      • Appeal courts such as the Supreme Court do not decide only questions of law. They also consider whether questions of fact that should have been considered by the inferiors courts have been taken into account. Besides, the statute law and the case law requiring judicial impartiality are entirely clear. Neither a justice nor, a fortiori, a court may give the slightest ground for suspicion that it is anything less than strictly impartial, yet the Supreme Court has allowed open prejudice to be expressed at a propaganda event broadcast from its own courtroom under the chairmanship of one of its own justices, who made orejudiced remarks himself and did not demur at the prejudiced remarks of the court’s chosen lecturer. The court is in continuing and grave breach of its iron obligation of impartiality, and will be held to account for it.

    • For clarification, QC stands for Queen’s Counsel, & as stated by Questing Vole, is a legal beagle of high rank who operates in the higher courts. Before the current monarch was enthroned, it would have been KC, or King’s Counsel. It will probably, but not necessarily, revert to KC when that f%£$”!t succeeds his mother, may God truly spare us from that green twit!!! He is not a patch on his mother, who has devoted herself to serving this nation!

  17. Too many questions and too encompassing. Damn near took me 3.5 days just to read it.!!!! Five submissions with four questions more likely be under the cost limit than one sumission with twenty questions. imoh

    • OK. But first you see what they say they have readily available, and what will go beyond the cost limit. Then you start to break it down. That is when the digging begins.

  18. The response posted above taught a number of things that have apparently been misrepresented. The whole event was neither sponsored by nor hosted by the SC. Only one part, a public lecture was given at its premises, and apparently two justices attended that lecture. The lecture is publically available as recorded, and has generated two quite capable and articulate opposing responses. One was posted at Climate Etc, the other linked to there. Carnsworth is not subject UK’s FOIA.
    Seems to me there are better, more important things to be supporting, like Lamar Smith’s NOAA subpoena over Karl emails, where criminal obstruction of congress has already occured.

    • Thank you for clarifying the facts.
      Judicial impartiality is sacred and anything that brings it into doubt is a serious problem. Although the American Code of Judicial Conduct does not expect a judge to live in isolation, it does reach far into the judge’s private life. (I assume the British rules are similar.) In particular, a judge must refrain from appearing to support any political position. link I am not sure whether this incident crosses any line but I do think Christopher Monckton has raised a legitimate concern.

      • Yes he has. But his method of doing so is doomed to failure because of the surrounding circumstances articulated above. Pounding pillows may feel good, but produces little in the way of results. Why waste ‘bullets’ on phantasmgorical targets, when there are so many real targets of opportunity to hit? (Sorry for the odd bit of military doctrine.)

    • Not too sure how it might better accurately apply and only a wiki reference, but useful stuff however:
      As the Crown Proceedings Act only affected the law in respect of acts carried on by or on behalf of the UK government, the monarch remains personally immune from criminal and civil actions.[23] However, civil proceedings can, in theory, still be brought using the two original mechanisms outlined above – by petition of right or by suit against the Attorney-General for a declaration.[24]
      Other immunities
      The monarch is immune from arrest in all cases; members of the royal household are immune from arrest in civil proceedings.[25] No arrest can be made “in the monarch’s presence”, or within the “verges” of a royal palace. When a royal palace is used as a residence (regardless of whether the monarch is actually living there at the time), judicial processes cannot be executed within that palace.[26]
      The monarch’s goods cannot be taken under a writ of execution, nor can distress be levied on land in their possession. Chattels owned by the Crown, but present on another’s land, cannot be taken in execution or for distress. The Crown is not subject to foreclosure.
      Quite their assumed majesties, eh?

    • The event was sponsored by the Supreme Court, and the portion complained of was hosted at its premises and continues to be hosted at its website. Carnwath, qua justice of the court, is subject to FOIA and, qua member of a UN environment body, is subject to the UK’s judicial conduct ombudsman. Ristvan should of course feel free to support whichever actions he pleases.

  19. So we just need 20 (British ??) people asking one question each
    Christopher Monckton of Brenchley has done a lot for us, I think the least we can do is volunteer
    I’m up for it, glad to help – Although we may need a tutorial on the process.
    ‘If I can annoy somebody along life’s way, then my living has not been in vain.’

  20. The president of the courts is referring to a limit of £600! That is a freaking joke! That reply is a disgrace for a court of which the confidence is at stakes!
    “Section 12 of the Act makes provision for public authorities to refuse requests for information where the cost of dealing with them would exceed the appropriate limit, which for central government is set at £600. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 3.5 working days in determining whether the Department holds the information, locating, retrieving and extracting the information.”
    Hello!!!!! The president of the courts could still have used his common sense. £600 is a lower limit – not a upper limit for common sense.
    I´m pretty sure they have already used tenfold £600 just in wriggling.
    “The reason is plain enough. Justice must be rooted in confidence: and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking: ‘The judge was biased.’ … The court looks at the impression which would be given to other people. Even if he was as impartial as could be, nevertheless if right-minded persons would think that, in the circumstances, there was a real likelihood of bias on his part, then he should not sit. And if he does sit, his decision cannot stand.”
    The penalty for falling for inductivism ought to be high for a judge.

    • Science or Fiction November 19, 2015 at 3:31 pm
      That reply is a disgrace for a court of which the confidence is at stakes!

      Disgrace or not, it was a reply, which is more than I would have expected.
      I also concur with
      ristvan November 19, 2015 at 3:17 pm
      “Seems to me there are better, more important things to be supporting.”

      I appreciate the time and effort Christopher Monckton of Brenchley spent in pursuing this issue. Now that it has been exposed to the cleansing power of sunlight, I don’t see how the small gain of a confession warrants spending further time, effort, and intellect..

  21. Did anyone else note that the reply quoted 600 pounds as being the cost limit to reply to a citizen’s inquiry – but the Court paid 775 pounds for their participation in the conference they did not organize?

  22. Governments in UK & elsewhere have passed FOI laws claiming they will provided open & transparent Government. One wonders what the purpose of that legislations is when it is so easily sidestepped by creative bureaucrats. We are seeing it in this case & others involving access to data in UK & USA.
    It is a pity that the 600 pounds limit was not applied to MP expenses claims.

  23. If the request has to cost less than a certain amount instead of submitting one request with multiple questions submit as many requests, each with one question, as required. Then based on which ones are deemed too expensive you can demand further information. It seems like instead of having to provide an amount of information up to the limit they can simply ignore the entire thing if they feel it goes over that financial limit. By not providing any additional reasons they make it hard to attack their reasons as well since you don’t know which of your individual requests are in violation.

      • Different requesters will indeed be asking one question each. The $1000 limit is framed as it is precisely so as to deter a single vexatious questioner but to allow multiple questioners where concern is, as here, sufficiently widespread.

  24. Lord Monckton
    I have not read all the comment, but one approach would be for one person to request info with respect to only 1 question. Then another person could request info in relation to only another different question. And so on, until all 20 questions have been covered.
    As a further refinement, perhaps the more extensive questions could be split up into several different requests with people asking details of only one single sub division etc.
    in that way, perhaps there will be say 30 or 50 different requests, each request being much more limited in nature and therefore much less likely to get caught by the £600 limit which was applicable to your original letter.
    Just a thought, and perhaps others have already suggested this.

  25. What ever happened to that venerable institution the House of Lords?
    It makes me weep looking at that tacky logo, which looks like it has been designed by a child and dumbs down the institution. How can anyone revere, look up to, and respect a body that has such a silly and cringeworthy logo.
    is it only me, but I view it as an embarrassment to have that logo on the letter head of the highest Court in the land (it is not the final arbiter of Scottish criminal cases)..

      • Tiny
        I understand the theme of the logo; being the four regions all within the Omega representing the final arbiter that embraces and oversees all those regions
        My point is that it just lacks dignity or gravitas. It is the sort of logo that might win a school completion, and seems far removed from the majesty of the law which should imbue the highest Court of the land.

  26. Just a little confused about the (herein) claimed certainty of the lecture. Looking at Sands lecture on this issue, the terms “advisory” and “opinion” are used throughout, suggesting that these international courts would have little strict ability to legally insure that corrections would take place. In addition the lecture already seems evenhanded and only provides examples of what MIGHT be done by the international courts. For example on page 14:
    “A first tier of issues might include: is climate change under way? have sea levels risen? have anthropogenic green hose gases been the main cause of atmospheric warming? I appreciate that many in this room will have considered these facts to already to have been established, but the reality is that some still challenge them. It is one thing for the IPCC to come to such conclusions as a matter of scientific opinion, but quite another for an international court to to give them the authority of a judicial determination of the facts.”
    “As I noted in the outset there is 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 persons.”
    On the surface of it, the lecture results seems reasonable as taken from their point of view as to how the courts might be of assistance in the matter. However, in the end, much like the rulings on human rights violations, they wouldn’t mean much without parliamentary or congressional approved treaties.
    https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/professor-sands-lecture-on-climate-change-and-the-rule-of-law.pdf

    • BFL: Don’t be dishonest. Following the sentence you have quoted about scientifically qualified, knowledgeable and influential persons challenging what Sands calls “factual matters”, Sands says the courts should “scotch” their “claims”. That is an open declaration of prejudice from which the court should have distanced itself.

      • Dishonest??? I’m simply referencing the pdf by Sanders as written. And I’m sorry, but a word search of the pdf didn’t indicate the word “scotch” anywhere in the document and the word “claims” is only in one location referring to the ICJ decision concerning Japanese whaling and in which he credits the ICJ for examining both sides of the issue:
        “The ICJ did not follow that path. That it chose to engage with competing scientific claims is much to its credit. Remarkably this is the first case ever in in which there was cross examination of the scientific experts put forth by Australia and Japan.”
        What am I missing???

      • Christopher,
        Could you elaborate as to what you need from WUWT readers overseas.
        Recently Mr Watts required some assistance to get to an upcoming conference and WUWT readers responded in sensational fashion.
        You seem to have touched a nerve here regarding this blatant Court Fiasco and if some finance is required then, as I mentioned here last week, please let us know what we can do assist.
        I am a low income earner but I consider it a privilege to be able to assist when asked to enable yourself, Anthony, Jo Nova and others to continue the tasks you take on.
        I am of the opinion that you have many supporting you and wish to show that support on this issue.
        How can we be of assistance to you from other countries?
        Salute to you Monckton of Brenchley.

      • Ahhh, I see that Sands says, in the video, “that the court could play a role here in finally scotching those claims” (about 40:30). Note that this line is NOT in the pdf lecture. But even so that is then followed by (in the video) “One of the most important things an international court could do–in my view, the single most important thing, is to settle the scientific dispute” which is similar to the pdf. I “suppose” that “scotch” (not used in the pdf) could be the antithesis of “settle”, or perhaps he just made a verbal blunder since it doesn’t match the pdf.
        Still, at least in the US, and I would think also in the UK, without a climate treaty the court decisions would just be considered advisory.

      • @ BFL,
        ‘And I’m sorry, but a word search of the pdf didn’t indicate the word “scotch” anywhere in the document and the word “claims” is only in one location …’.
        ========================
        “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.”
        The words in bold type were not in Sands’ script. He added them on the fly. It is often in ad-libs of this kind that the true (and, in the present instance, frankly malevolent) intent of the speaker is revealed “:
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/26/who-will-watch-the-watchmen-a-reply-to-lord-carnwath-and-philippe-sands-qc-on-climate-change-and-the-law/

      • ‘I “suppose” that “scotch” (not used in the pdf) could be the antithesis of “settle” …’.
        =========================
        No it couldn’t.
        “Scotch” verb: put an end to, put a stop to, bring to an end, nip in the bud, put the lid on; ruin, wreck, scupper, destroy, devastate, smash, shatter, demolish, queer; frustrate, thwart; informal put paid to, blow, put the kibosh on, clobber. (Oxford Thesaurus of English).

      • What hubris to suggest that a court is the best place to settle scientific dispute. But that’s people of the legal profession for you…
        To scotch is to “decisively put an end to …” The intent of such vebiage is clear, one must stiffle any dissent. It is not a word one would chose by accident.

    • I found your comment to be rather reasonable.
      But I am at a loss as to why a Court should be touting for business, and it seems to me that the lecture was aimed at ambulance chasing, and one which the Supreme Court would have been better advised to have distanced itself from.
      I don’t see the harm in a bunch of activists getting together and debating possible strategy, and exploring what options might be available to further or to assist their cause. but again, the Supreme Court would have been better advised to distance itself from such a debate.
      That said, of course Judges deliver speeches on the law, how it may develop, and upon the functions of a Court, its constitutional powers and the scope of the jurisdiction of the Courts. .
      So there are some potentially competing themes behind this lecture/debate. The Court could comment upon whether it had jurisdiction to look at the matter, and if so what powers it had in relation to the matter. But it should not be engaged in debating whether the matter should be put before it. I began watching the video, but I did not fully watch it so I do not know whether lines became blurred and boundaries crossed.
      The general thrust of Lord Monckton’s position is that it gives rise to a potential conflict of interest, namely not simply whether the judge is impartial but whether that manifestly appears to be the case. Mere appearance of impartiality, or conflict even where in practice there was none because the Judge managed to stay completely objective is usually sufficient to vitiate a decision ,

      • “But I am at a loss as to why a Court should be touting for business, and it seems to me that the lecture was aimed at ambulance chasing, and one which the Supreme Court would have been better advised to have distanced itself from.”
        If you will look at the written lecture (pdf) you see how this action was initially advised against by Sands and then when a Netherlands court (Hague) came down on the side of “climate change” by forcing the Dutch government to meet CO2 targets, he, apparently, decided to see if the international courts could be of use (pg 1-3). I find the pdf easier to use because the video tends to be hard to follow. However there are some differences (as there always will be) and as has already been pointed out, the differences of course MUST be sinister. Although I may be wrong, from the pdf, I see the lecture as one that was probably requested (per page 1) for any input as to what authority the international courts might have and how they might proceed on the matter. He could have firmly distanced himself but that tends not to be the way of courts in general, especially where there may be some precedence, treaty or arcane law involved. To me, this appears to more of an infomercial for the ICJ and not nearly so sinister as presented.

      • BFL does not, perhaps, appreciate how strong is the obligation on the judiciary not to declare positions on matters of current political dispute. Carnwath and Sands took it for granted throughout that their point of view was the only one permissible. That degree of prejudice, however small a fraction of the proceedings was devoted to its expression, is contrary to law.

  27. I would start with a minor question/request. Something that cannot be very expensive. Work up from there.
    If they refuse something that is obviously minor in scope and easy to provide inexpensively, then begin an all-out attack to force an answer to that question.
    Also, are there still political representatives in the UK? Is there not anyone who would support a constituent? And if not in one venue, then in a friendlier venue where someone you know would be willing to ask for the same informaton?

  28. Lord Monckton is a true warrior.
    But war is hell and must be funded.
    How about funding the war effort?
    I realize there are existing organizations like Heritage Foundation one could donate to, but it seems like a skeptics super fund is long overdue.
    Perhaps a regular ask here at the top of WUWT, for donations to a central skeptic’s bank to fund the war effort?
    I would donate and trust Watts, McIntire and these folks to provide oversight.
    http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7?op=1
    The many thousands of people world wide who are not able to fight the battle themselves may be very supportive of those who do.

    • Now that is a force concentration idea I would robustly support. Provided some funding went to compensate the organizers, like AW. And Provided it had some scientific guidance so as not to go off the rails. I would nominate Curry for climate science, Lomborg for Adaptation economics, and Koonin (APS railroad) as a neutral chairperson to steer fact finding. No different than I organized the science advisory groups for my two companies. One formal, the other informal. Both chose the worlds best experts who would agree to participate, largely uncompensated except for travel. A humbling but very educational managerial experience. And a lot of work.

      • Most grateful to those who have offered to help with funding. I am thinking of setting up an entity to fight cases such as this, because in the courts, provided that the judges are impartial, each side is fairly heard and can cross-examine the other. In such circumstances, we’d win, as we did in the Gore case.

  29. Immense fiscal caution would be crucial.
    This central skeptics bank would have to resist any tendencies to create their own costly skeptics bureaucracy. And they can’t have a bunch of consultants treating it like a gravy train.
    I trust the board of trustees would be rigid and committed to maintaining a narrow yet focused and effective war machine. Picking efforts worth arming and targets worth firing upon.
    For the mendacious lunatics, David, my war rhetoric is figuratively speaking.
    There are lots of neglected opportunities where misbehavior by many officials is never pursued.
    An aggressive surge in FOIA activity would out many of them
    It’s time consuming but that would be a department worthy of funding.

  30. The Supreme purpose of any Government’s “Supreme Court” is to exonerate the Government firstly and its bureaucrats secondly of any knowledge of any nefarious dealings of course.
    Ha ha

  31. These stupid people decide the most important cases in England??? And we thought we had troubles with our Supreme Court.
    Eugene WR Gallun

  32. Lord Monktom
    Sir could you not send a request for the names and employment details of those that have left this lucrative employment? Surely this would not exceed the monetary limit ? And as they are public employees ? I think the wool is being dragged over the “sheep’s” eyes.
    address sent

  33. Personally, I do not see a problem with the Courts looking at this issue, provided that they remain impartial, and provided that they stick to looking at the facts, and provided that a sensible approach is given to the burden of proof, ie., which party carries it and at what level is it discharged (eg on a balance of probabilities, or beyond all reasonable doubt)
    Personally, I consider an action before the Courts to face insurmountable problems even at the most basic level, and would in practice receive sharp shrift from the Court.
    First one needs to define Climate. Even the IPCC cannot define that, and has two different definitions. Both of which are at odds with the classical definition and meaning of the term..
    Second, if Climate is never in stasis and continually varies, ie., continually changes, how can one asses whether climate change is underway? Change is always underway 24/7, year in year out, decade in decade out etc.
    Third, one only has to look at the ensemble of computer models to know that the science is not settled. If it was settled, there would be just 1 computer model reflecting the basic physics of GHGs and Earth’s atmosphere and water cycle. The mere fact that there are 90 or so models clearly establishes that the science is not settled. More importantly, if there are say 90 models, we know as fact that 89 of them must be wrong. Does that mean that one of them is right? and if so, can the right one be identified? Obviously if the right one could be identified, then there would only have been one model used in the IPCC projections not say 90.
    Fourth, as regards supposed consensus, the above is relevant. The fact is that the IPCC was unable to put forward a consensus view on the most probable Climate Sensitivity is also proof that there is not consensus..
    One only has to look at the sheer volume of papers that say different, sometime opposite or contradictory things to know that the science is not settled and that there is no consensus. Every witness presented will almost certainly something different, especially when challenged with evidence of competing and differing papers.
    I am sure that the Court will quickly appreciate that model output is meaningless since the models are unvalidated and even the IPCC says they perform badly with respect to a number of crucial processes. materially, they perform badly on a regional basis, and yet Climate is a regional phenomena, not a global one, and the Court will immediately pick up on why the IPCC do not make predictions but projections. The mere fact that the IPCC does not do predictions, but is forced to set out only projections is a killer.
    The people pushing for intervention by the Courts have fooled themselves. They have fooled themselves by believing the political summaries which they themselves have written, ie., the Summary for Policy Makers which does not reflect the uncertainties expressed in the IPCC reports in the science and working group sections. One only has to look at the entirety of the IPCC reports to appreciate that due to uncertainties expressed therein any action before the Courts is doomed to failure. And that is before sceptics present counter arguments and counter evidence.
    Many of the leading scientists could not even give evidence. how could Phil Jones or Michael Mann give evidence when faced with cross examination on issues arsing out of Climategate? Their integrity would be shot to pieces. Look at the recent Congressional Subpoena of NOAA, how could these people actually come before the Courts? Many of the scientists would be forces to admit that they lack the necessary expertise, eg., that they lack expertise in statistics and statistics underpins their papers. The defence would just have a field day with competence and integrity.
    The proposal in the Sand’s lecture simply has not been well thought through, mainly because the easiest person to fool is yourself, and these activists have fooled themselves by believing their own press releases, and the Summary for Policy Makers, and believing that their models mean something where in truth the output of models is meaningless.

    • Richard,
      I do so agree with your statement, “First one needs to define Climate”.
      “Climate is what we expect; the weather is what we get.”
      ( … and yes, that was written a very long time ago by someone famous).
      Your comments above are very well put and I rather fancy (and hope) that they will be “picked up” by the shyte-hawks in Washington, Paris, London who view this site for obvious reasons. It is they who have the fear of loss.
      Regards,
      WL

      • Mr Verney is right that the believers have everything to lose if they put their shoddy case before an impartial tribunal. But in the UK they now know they can’t lose, because the highest court in the land is prejudiced in their favour,

  34. Further to my comment above, just consider 3 other issues.
    First Sea Level rise. this has been ongoing since the LIA, materially there has been no acceleration in the rate of sea level rise these past 50 or so years, there is much contradictory evidence as to whether there is any sea level rise, and if so its rate, and how can 8 to 10 metre, or even 1 metre Sea Level rise by the end of this Century be justified? It is like the Himalaya Glacier fiasco, how can the Antarctic ice shelf rapidly disappear, break off and cause sudden and extensive Sea Level rise. Ditto Greenland especially from the central areas given its topography. The scare is all IFs and Maybes, not that this will happen etc.
    Second, the ‘pause’. there are at least 50 different reasons put forward explaining this. That shows that the science is not well understood let alone settled, that pertinent matters and facts are not sufficiently known and understood and that there is no consensus. Cross examination of scientists would be a blood bath.
    Third, all the failed predictions. Again, cross examination of witnesses on this would be a blood bath. There is only one prediction which remains arguably valid, ie the loss of Arctic ice, but again the predictions with regard to rate of loss have been grossly wrong, and it is countered by the growth in Antarctic ice which growth was never predicted. I am aware that this year Antarctic ice was down a bit, but (whilst I do not like speculating or predicting) this is probably due to the 2015/16 Strong El Nino and small changes in oceanic current/warmth of prevailing oceanic currents in the region, and there will probably be a bounce back when a following La Nina occurs.
    As I say, I do not see how the action proposed by Sands gets off the ground. It does not pass a prima facie case, let alone detailed consideration. If one stops and things about it even for just 5 to 10 minutes, the problems with the action are quickly shown to be insurmountable. As I say, these guys have simply fooled themselves because the easiest person to fool is yourself.

    • “As I say, I do not see how the action proposed by Sands gets off the ground. It does not pass a prima facie case, let alone detailed consideration. If one stops and things about it even for just 5 to 10 minutes, the problems with the action are quickly shown to be insurmountable. As I say, these guys have simply fooled themselves because the easiest person to fool is yourself.”
      They probably haven’t seen many of the other viewpoints but I’m sure they have been bombarded by the money seekers on the “climate change” side so they are probably not fully aware of the discrepancies. They might not know the true difficulties until they were immersed in the morass.

  35. If you’ve got nothing useful to do, I guess you can waste public money by tying up courts on some fools errand. Surely you can do better than to stoop so low.

  36. So, we are dead interested on various influence(s), does this scotch that?
    response to Q15:
    “Please see the paragraphs above relating to section 12 of the Act. However, it might also help, in the event you want to make a further freedom-of-information request, if I explain that judicial office-holders are not covered by the provisions of the Act and, as such, any information they hold is not accessible under the terms of the Act”.
    Freedom of speech is one thing. And there they were sitting in their own premises configured in an administrative mode. Whats been happening in the background is of course of some suspicion and kicked along by this chap, amongst others: (the royal handwringer)
    https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/hrh-prince-of-wales-letter-of-support-to-climate-change-and-the-rule-of-law-symposium.pdf

  37. What irritates me is the CLICK-BAIT intro given by WUWT

    Britain’s highest court apologizes for breaking the law but dodges questions about its widely-broadcast September 2015 climate-change propaganda event urging national and international courts to “scotch” the “claims” of skeptical climate scientists and researchers.

    Actually they only apologise for not looking at the FOIA within the 28day time-limit, they also answer half the questions rather than “dodge them”.

    • stewgreen says: November 20, 2015 at 6:33 am
      What irritates me is the CLICK-BAIT intro given by WUWT
      Britain’s highest court apologizes for breaking the law but dodges questions about its widely-broadcast September 2015 climate-change propaganda event urging national and international courts to “scotch” the “claims” of skeptical climate scientists and researchers.
      Actually they only apologise for not looking at the FOIA within the 28day time-limit, they also answer half the questions rather than “dodge them”.
      =========================================
      In other words, as your own post verifies: they apologized for breaking the law that mandates they answer within the 28-days and they dodged half the questions.

  38. I’m on the whole impressed by the answer the Supreme Court has given and I personally wonder if it is worth taking it much further, though Lord Monckton may have a clearer idea of which transgressions he is trying to pin down, and I do appreciate the effort he has put into it!
    Two issues I’m unclear about, and I’m sure the learned commenters here will resolve for me the uncertainty.
    (1) The Court seems to defend itself by saying that it is involved only in providing a venue, and that is an administrative, rather than a judicial, matter. Okay, is that it? Can ANYONE hire the Supreme Court in this way? If not, what guidance is imposed on who may, and who may not, use the venue?
    (2) Individual Justices do indeed have something to answer. Philippe Sands may act as an advocate, sure, but Lord Carnwath certainly should be examined very closely indeed on the matter of his involvement. Activist jurists are not generally welcomed by the British system (I hope!)
    Love to hear what M of R Denning would have said – he is much missed.

    • In reply to mothcatcher, te Supreme Court has broken the law by hearing, expressing and broadcasting only one narrow viewpoint on an issue of current political contention. It must be seen to be impartial. On this issue, it is not impartial.

      • …yet the answer to mothcatcher’s questions, “Can ANYONE hire the Supreme Court in this way? If not, what guidance is imposed on who may, and who may not, use the venue?”
        =================================================================================
        ..is both cogent and elaborated on above in Christopher Monckton’s acknowledgement of the benefit of forcing the supreme point to likewise provide the same, “administrative venue” for the skeptics.

  39. …Shows who goes just as the wind blows, Forrest.
    Which way will they tilt when summers quit for a couple of years?

  40. The question that I would ask is why did the Supreme Court not only permit its premises to be used free of charge but also provide £775 towards the cost of the occasion.
    Would the Supreme Court host a similar event event organised by The Global Warming Foundation and if so would they make it free of charge?
    Perhaps Dr. Benny Peiser might make such a request..

  41. Of the twenty responses to the twenty questions in the 18 November 2015 letter from the The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (SCOTUK) to Lord Monckton, there are two SCOTUK responses of “No such records exist.” See here,

    Monckton Question – #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.
    SC response – No such records exist.
    &
    Monckton Question – #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.
    SC response – No such records exist.

    The two “No such records exist” responses by SCOTUK presents a few exposures of high liability for SCOTUK.
    How would SCOTUK know that the two sets (Q9 set & Q19 set) of records either exist or do not exist? SCOTUK couldn’t know unless it did an actual specific inquiry directed to all of the following: a) each of the eleven SCOTUK justices; b) any official or servant or agent of SCOTUK; c) any other non-legal professionals formally close to SCOTUS. SCOTUK has set themselves up for severe criticism. Why?
    SCOTUK has set themselves up for criticism because, with SCOTUK’s “No such records exist” responses to Monckton, it is now possible to make a FOIA request to SCOTUK asking for documents related to SCOTUK’s inquiry into the existence or the non-existence of the two sets (Q9 set & Q19 set) of records. I think that any SCOTUK response to the new FOIA request exposures SCOTUK to significant loss of credibility no matter how they answer. Think about it.
    John

    • Mr Whitman is right. These answers establish that none of the justices demurred at either the staging of Carnwath’s Christmas pantomime or at the flagrant and unilateral prejudices expressed during the event. These answers serve to establish that the Court has taken no steps to correct the impression of prejudice it has created.

  42. Forest Gardener’s point is sound. The Court’s sin against the iron obligation of impartiality is that it sponsored the event, held it in its own courtrooms, allowed only one side of a matter of current political contention to be heard, allowed one of its own justices to chair the event, let him make overtly partisan remarks, let its chosen lecturer say that the work of knowledgeable, scientifically qualified individuals should be “scorched”, took no steps to demur at these prejudiced remarks, broadcast the event under a statement that it was one of the event’s sponsors, broke the law by not replying timeously to a freedom of information request, and continues to break the law by falsely asserting that, though it holds documents covered by that request, it cannot afford to supply any of them.
    As my original posting made clear, I am indeed thinking of requiring the court to sponsor, hold and broadcast a similar event at which the other side will be heard, and of applying for judicial review of its manifest breach of natural justice if it refuses. Lord Carnwath and Philippe Sands will also be reported to the judicial misconduct authorities, unless the court now takes reasonable steps to bring itself back within the law.

  43. A national supreme court lets it be known that it will allow politics to trump mere law.
    The socialists have truly won.

    • MarkW,
      No they have NOT. Get a grip !
      Just read ALL of the detailed comments and responses by the writer of this article.
      Have some faith in the writer and lend some support please.
      If you really do believe your two sentences you may aswell be impotent.

  44. The UK Supreme Court is comprised of eminent Judges who should know better than to engage in what they engaged in.
    The problem with these judges is that they honestly believe, because of their positions of privilege, that they are an authority unto themselves, and are unaccountable to the people, and they do not have to be honest and straightforward in their dealings with us mere mortals.
    What words describes that? Hmmmmmmmm?????
    FRAUD? CORRUPTION? ABUSE OF AUTHORITY?

Comments are closed.