Skip to content

Original Heathrow High Court Judgement

February 29, 2020

By Paul Homewood


h/t MrGrimNasty

Just an interesting update on the Heathrow case.

This is the original High Court judgement, which has been overturned by the Appeal Court:





It is quite clear that the Paris Agreement does not form part of UK law.

We must await the Appeal Court’s full judgment, but it is hard to see how it can be actually based on the actual law as it stands. Or how the High Court misinterpreted the law, which is surely the only grounds for overturning the original judgement.

  1. Chris permalink
    February 29, 2020 4:20 pm

    Let’s hope that is the case

    Time to drop though so other baseless judgements can’t be made


  2. JimW permalink
    February 29, 2020 4:36 pm

    Unfortunately Paul, the Law is only whatever a Court interprets it as being. Written words are maleable in the hands of our legal friends, and ‘the law’ consequently changes from day to day depending on the whims of a Court. As a consequence Courts are increasingly areas of political skirmishes. Its obviously ‘in extremis’ in the US, but just about every country’s legal system is open to manipulation by activists of one hue or another.
    The Supreme Court may take a different view to the Appeal Court.j

    • Keith Holland permalink
      February 29, 2020 7:59 pm

      Don’t count on it.

  3. February 29, 2020 4:43 pm

    This is the judgment:

    Click to access Heathrow-judgment-on-planning-issues-27-February-2020.pdf

    Section 12(4) says one of the issues is ‘whether the Secretary of State breached the SEA Directive by failing to consider the Paris Agreement.’

    Then there are additions to that in Section 13. The words ‘Paris Agreement’ appear 91 times in the whole document.

    • February 29, 2020 6:42 pm

      Para. 276 refers to a ‘basic defect’:
      We are unable to accept the suggestion that the terms of section 31(2A) are satisfied in this case. We find it impossible to conclude that it is “highly likely” that the ANPS would not
      have been “substantially different” if the Secretary of State had gone about his task in
      accordance with law. In particular, in our view, it was a basic defect in the decision-making
      process that the Secretary of State expressly decided not to take into account the Paris
      Agreement at all. That was a fundamentally wrong turn in the whole process.

      See also the Conclusion, paras. 281-285.

      • February 29, 2020 8:33 pm

        In their view!

      • March 1, 2020 9:57 am

        Of course, but that’s what we’re stuck with now :/

      • March 1, 2020 11:15 am

        Paras 236-238 of the judgment are interesting. In 236 they decide that ‘the
        Secretary of State was advised that he was not permitted as a matter of law to take into account the Paris Agreement’.

        238. Again we would emphasize that it does not follow from this that the Secretary of State was obliged to act in accordance with the Paris Agreement or to reach any particular outcome. The only legal obligation, in our view, was to take the Paris Agreement into account when arriving at his decision.
        – – –
        So it was the duff advice that in the end has led to the verdict.

  4. Harry Passfield permalink
    February 29, 2020 5:05 pm

    Could it really come to this that, judges in lower courts, having dismissed cases (GreenPeace climbing power station chimneys; XR blocking the roads in London) before them because they sympathise with their aims, have now managed to push their ideology up to the more senior benches? If this is the case then it will not only be Rutman being made to give up his office. No bad thing, IMO.

  5. johnbillscott permalink
    February 29, 2020 5:11 pm

    Is Greedpeace a registered charity? if so are they not allowed to retain charity status if they engage in political action.

    • GeoffB permalink
      February 29, 2020 6:33 pm

      they lost it in new zealand in 2018, and in Canada a few years ago and they have had problems in USA…grounds are …they do not do any actual charity work and commit illegal acts. but maybe they got it back……

  6. Curious George permalink
    February 29, 2020 6:21 pm

    It feels like a negation of Brexit. Is Boris the right person to lead a revolution?

    • Keith Holland permalink
      February 29, 2020 8:02 pm

      Definitely no. He’s probably ok for Brexit but nothing else.

      • Dave Ward permalink
        February 29, 2020 10:17 pm

        “He’s probably OK for Brexit but nothing else

        Not entirely:

        “Boris Johnson and Carrie Symonds engaged and expecting baby”

        And there was me (and, I think, quite a few others) hoping the pair would soon fall out. This announcement, presumably, means absolutely NO chance of him changing his mind over the absurd climate laws we are saddled with…

  7. It doesn't add up... permalink
    February 29, 2020 6:47 pm

    I suspect this needs a quick debunk:

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      February 29, 2020 9:36 pm

      Perhaps the debunk, assuming they do irony, is: weather or not.

  8. A C Osborn permalink
    February 29, 2020 7:39 pm

    The judge could have used the Climate Change act and then Net Zero.
    The stupid Governments all over the world are playing into the hands of the Climate activists and the UN Agendas.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      February 29, 2020 7:43 pm

      And the Chinese are laughing at us.

      • Gas Geezer permalink
        February 29, 2020 10:06 pm

        Laughing all the way to the bank , selling us their wind and solar power contraptions .

    • Ben Vorlich permalink
      March 1, 2020 8:28 am

      I’ve always said as far as climate, and many other things, Brexit merely cut out the middleman between us and the UN. I’ve now come to the conclusion that it will result in more extreme nonsense and regulation.

  9. CheshireRed permalink
    February 29, 2020 8:13 pm

    The judgement is nonsense. The court declared the government hadn’t taken into account their obligations under the CC Act. Yet surely to counter that all government has to say is, ‘actually your Honour, yes we did’.

    There; that’s government ‘taking our obligations into account’!

    ‘Paris’ isn’t legal in ANY way so relying on that route alone is dead before it starts. It’s UK law which is the sticking point, in particular whether the UK government has acted within its own obligations.

    Ben Piles article is superb and rightly credits Peter (now Lord) Lilley with calling out the inevitable activist-led judicial review into our own ‘legally binding’ obligations fully 12 years ahead of it happening.

    We’re governed by spivs, chancers and idiots.

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      February 29, 2020 8:26 pm

      We’re governed by carpetbaggers. The Debens of our age, pathetically seeking to emulate Gore and acquire his millions. I wonder what his burger-(forced) eating daughter makes of him now,

    • March 1, 2020 10:55 am

      UK law is still the same as EU law, unless or until Parliament replaces any part of it with new legislation.

      The ‘offending’ item is the SEA Directive according to the judges.

  10. john cooknell permalink
    February 29, 2020 8:21 pm

    We’re governed by spivs, chancers and idiots.

    We always have been!

  11. Adamsson permalink
    March 1, 2020 7:35 am

    No judge needs a reason to grab more power for the judges

  12. Jackington permalink
    March 1, 2020 5:04 pm

    I would still like to know how Boris intends to meet the legal requirements of his net zero carbon emissions by 2050 without closing all UK airprts?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: