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.

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.

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.

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.