| ClientEarth wins landmark case against the UK for failing citizens on access to justice |
|
26 August 2010 | Press release The government must fundamentally change the way UK courts operate to allow citizens access to environmental justice. The UK courts are out of line with all other EU countries on the costs citizens face when they fight for their rights. An authoritative international tribunal has released recommendations on a case brought by ClientEarth which should change this. It states that the UK’s current legal processes cost too much. The unreasonable financial risks involved in bringing a case mean the UK is failing to meet its obligations under the Aarhus Convention,[1] a UN convention which it ratified in 2005. UK worst in Europe on court fees The Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee’s findings are a major breakthrough for green groups and environmentalists. The UK has long been recognised as having the most punitive costs rules in Europe, and today’s decision will place a great pressure on the UK government to make real changes to the way UK courts operate, redressing a balance that has until now weighed heavily in favour of governments and corporations. James Thornton, CEO ClientEarth, explains: “Today’s findings are game-changing for anyone fighting for their environmental rights. At the moment, the government and industries can ride roughshod over their environmental responsibilities, confident that the legal system’s failings will make challenges impossible. “If the government’s word is to mean anything on the international stage, it must move effectively and decisively to remedy the gross unfairness of the UK legal system. For the first time citizens will be able to scrutinise and challenge environmental decisions from a fair position.” Current cost rules in the UK often force claimants to cover their opponents’ legal fees, as well as their own and the court’s costs. A single-day hearing in the UK courts could cost over £100,000, and few individuals or public interest groups have the resources to risk being landed with a bill of this size. Case study: Lilian Pallikaropoulos is a resident of Rugby, Warwickshire. She took on a case challenging the permission given to a cement factory to burn tyres, fearing the release of dangerous fumes would compromise the health of the community. Although early challenges were brought under legal aid protection, this protection no longer applied when she took an appeal against an unfavourable decision to the House of Lords. They found against her after a hearing of three days. But with costs at judicial discretion, she now faces a bill of up to £88,100. Extremely few individuals or green groups are able to shoulder such a financial burden, which means that cases like these are rarely taken, leaving communities exposed. This system has been found to contravene a requirement of the Aarhus Convention, that bringing a case on an environmental issue must not be ‘prohibitively expensive’. The committee heard ClientEarth’s case in Geneva in September 2009. ClientEarth argued that the UK breached the Aarhus Convention on prohibitive costs, courts' failure to give a public right to effectively challenge public decisions and unfair time limits on bringing cases. ClientEarth explained its legal concerns with a practical case study regarding the dumping and capping of toxic harbour dredgings on the sea floor. It argued that the four failures of the UK courts system prevented a public interest case against the decision-making authorities, including the Port of Tyne Authority which deposited the toxic materials in the sea. However, the outcome of the case has implications for all environmental legal challenges that could be brought to UK courts – and potentially beyond. James Thornton continues: “In a mature participatory democracy, when government acts unlawfully or fails to adequately defend the public interest, citizens and NGOs should be able to take up that prosecuting role. “Today’s findings are a victory not only for ClientEarth and its partners but for all those fighting for environmental justice. They demand that a door is opened allowing green groups and individuals to fight for people and planet.” ENDS Notes to editors 1 The 1998 Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, usually known as the Aarhus Convention. 2 For further information, summaries of our case and arguments and comment contact: Mike Haines | Communications officer | t. +44 (0) 207 749 5978 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it George Leigh | Communications officer | t. +44 (0) 203 030 5951 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it Katherine Sladden | Communications officer | t. +44 (0) 203 030 5954 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it Draft recommendations released by the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee will be made available on their site shortly, here Previous press releases on ClientEarth’s UK Aarhus case: Commission warns UK on unfair costs rules – ClientEarth response Jackson Report offers no remedy for environmental cases costs risks Environmental justice case 'will establish fundamental rights for green groups' About ClientEarth ClientEarth is a non-profit environmental law organisation based in London, Brussels and Warsaw. We are lawyers working at the interface of law, science and policy. Using the power of the law, we develop legal strategies and tools to address major environmental issues. As legal experts working in the public interest, we act to strengthen the work of our partners – both governments and NGOs. Our work covers climate change and energy system transformation, protection of oceans, biodiversity and tropical forests. Ninety per cent of Europe’s environmental laws are made in Brussels where multi-national firms have widespread influence through lobbyists and lawyers. ClientEarth was set up to redress the balance and is providing similar legal support for environmental initiatives and campaigns. |
