This website is no longer actively maintained

For up-to-date information on the campaigns it represents please visit:

No Airport Expansion! is a campaign group that aims to provide a rallying point for the many local groups campaigning against airport expansion projects throughout the UK.

Visit No Airport Expansion! website

Tim Crosland (Plan B Earth) broke Supreme Court judgement embargo as “an act of civil disobedience” that will be treated as a “contempt of court”

Date added: 16 December, 2020

The Appeal Court ruled in February that the ANPS was illegal, as it had not taken proper account of the Paris Agreement and the climate targets for the UK.  The case was partly on complicated legal points about to what extent Paris-related obligations were part of UK law.  The two parties taking the challenge to the Supreme Court are Friends of the Earth UK and Plan B Earth.  A day before the court date, Tim Crosland – representing Plan B Earth – decided (on being given a pre-copy of the judgement) in ‘an act of civil disobedience,’ to publicise the decision, though not the details of the judgement. This will be held as contempt of court. Several papers published news of this, but then withdrew comments, for fear of also being held in contempt of court. Tim Crosland believes that the Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling at the time in 2018) should have acted in line with trying to avoid a 1.5C rise in global temperature, not just a 2C rise, and this decision by the Supreme Court puts the well-being and lives of millions of people – especially young people – at risk, from climate related impacts.

 

The judgement on the legal challenges to the government’s Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) is due to be handed down by the Court at 9.45am by the Supreme Court judges.
.

 

Personal Statement on the Supreme Court’s Heathrow verdict

By Tim Crosland  (Plan B Earth)

15th December 2020

Tomorrow, 16 December, the Supreme Court will publish its judgement on Heathrow expansion. I have taken the decision to break the embargo on that decision as an act of civil disobedience. This will be treated as a “contempt of court” and I am ready to face the consequences. I have no choice but to protest the deep immorality of the Court’s ruling. 

Chris Grayling took his decision to approve Heathrow expansion in June 2018.  That was 2 ½ years on from the Paris Agreement. Yet he assessed the climate impacts of Heathrow expansion against the historic temperature limit of 2˚C warming – which the UK Government and the international community had rejected as inadequate and dangerous in 2015. He did not inform the public or Parliament that that is what he did, but it became clear through the disclosure in this litigation that that is what he did.

Had he assessed Heathrow expansion against the 1.5˚C temperature goal in the Paris Agreement, he could not have approved it. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global decarbonisation by 2050 would still leave a 50% chance of exceeding 1.5˚C (even assuming the rapid development of negative emission technologies). According to the Government’s own figures, Heathrow expansion would mean 40 million tonnes of CO2 by 2050, just from UK aviation. Those two figures can not be reconciled.

In February 2020, the Court of Appeal ruled that Mr Grayling should have relied on the Paris Agreement temperature limit (not the 2˚C limit) and consequently ruled his decision unlawful. Boris Johnson informed Parliament that the Government would accept that decision and abide by the Paris Agreement.

But Heathrow Airport Limited, the company which plans to profit from expansion launched an appeal, supported by an army of lawyers. Tomorrow the Supreme Court will overturn the Court of Appeal’s judgement in Heathrow’s favour and rule that Mr Grayling acted lawfully.

As the IPCC has shown, the consequences for humanity of exceeding the 1.5˚C temperature limit are dire, with the younger generation and the Global South on the frontline. Mr Grayling’s hidden reliance upon the discredited, dangerous 2˚C limit to support his plans was a treasonous betrayal of the young people of this country and made a mockery of the Government’s commitment to showing international leadership in the face of the climate emergency, which our Parliament and the UN Secretary General have declared. 

The pandemic has reminded us of our subjection to natural laws. The Paris Temperature Limit is all that divides us from a grim future of crisis upon crisis. The Government was right to accept the Court of Appeal’s verdict. The Supreme Court’s judgment, which has legitimised Mr Grayling’s use of the deadly 2˚C threshold, has betrayed us all. 

I have been a lawyer for 25 years and a legal adviser to government agencies. I was a Deputy Director at the Serious Organised Crime Agency. I have deep respect for the rule of law and the vital role of the judicial system in holding power to account. That is why it is a duty to protest a decision that so gravely betrays that purpose. 

I take this act of protest for the sake of my two children and in memory of all those who have lost their lives on the frontline of the climate crisis, in the UK and around the world.

See  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HxxC4TQgHh_haFkikww74CBhwgYaKfu1Nooi9NwKJns/preview?pru=AAABdoq0zc4*x_pS5xIEqbN1M-86ODm53w   as the full document, including all footnotes

 

COURT TO RULE IN FAVOUR OF HEATHROW, BUT ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL AND POLITICAL OBSTACLES TO THIRD RUNWAY REMAIN

15th December, 2020

By the AEF (Aviation Environment Federation)

According to news reported by Reuters, the Supreme Court will tomorrow rule in favour of Heathrow, overturning the judgment of the Court of Appeal that the plan for Heathrow expansion was unlawful for having failed to take account of the Paris Agreement on climate change. But this legal obstacle to the third runway (plans for which may yet be subject to further legal challenge from opponents), may prove insignificant compared with the political, economic and climate challenges ahead.

The Covid crisis has caused demand to plummet, and it’s widely thought that passenger levels won’t recover for several years. Whether business travel – the main money-spinner for many of Heathrow’s airlines – will ever be the same is in fact doubtful now that working practices have shifted towards virtual meetings online. A recent US poll of the business travel sector predicted that up to 36% of business air passengers will be lost permanently.

Heathrow chose to fight this court battle alone, the Government having shown no interest in reviving the third runway plans after they were judged to be unlawful by the Court of Appeal. In the meantime, the need for decision-makers to get a grip on aviation emissions has become crystal clear. Last week, the Government’s climate experts advised that there should be no increase in the UK’s total airport capacity if demand for flying is to be kept to a level that’s consistent with UK climate law.

https://www.aef.org.uk/2020/12/15/court-to-rule-in-favour-of-heathrow-but-economic-environmental-and-political-obstacles-to-third-runway-remain/

.

Comment from the No 3rd Runway Coalition:

Image

 

Story on UK court decision on Heathrow expansion is withdrawn

By Reuters Staff

15.12.2020

LONDON (Reuters) -The story “UK top court to give Heathrow expansion go-ahead, lawyer says” is withdrawn, given English court restrictions on the publication of embargoed judgments. There will be no replacement story.
.

HEATHROW: SUPREME COURT TO GIVE THIRD RUNWAY THE GO-AHEAD, CLAIMS LAWYER

In ‘an act of civil disobedience,’ Tim Crosland says the airport expansion has been approved

By Simon Calder, Travel Correspondent   @SimonCalder  (The Independent)

15.12.2020

The Supreme Court will approve the expansion of Heathrow airport, a lawyer involved in the case has claimed.

Judgment on challenges by environmentalists and local authorities to the planned third runway is expected at 9.45am on Wednesday.

But Tim Crosland, a lawyer representing Plan B Earth, says he has decided to break the embargo on the court’s decision “as an act of civil disobedience”.

A new third runway northwest of Heathrow’s existing pair was unanimously recommended by the Davies Commission in 2015.

It would allow an increase from 480,000 takeoffs and landings each year to around 740,000.

The government’s National Policy Statement (NPS) was voted through by a large majority in Parliament.

But a group of local authorities and environmental campaign groups challenged the legality of the NPS. In February 2020, the Appeal Court ruled that the-then transport secretary, Chris Grayling, had failed to take into account climate-change commitments under the Paris Agreement.

Boris Johnson, an opponent of Heathrow’s expansion, said the government would accept the Appeal Court’s verdict. But Heathrow Airport Ltd took the case to the Supreme Court.

Mr Crosland claims that the judgement will be overturned. In what he called a “personal statement,” he said: “This will be treated as a ‘contempt of court’ and I am ready to face the consequences. I have no choice but to protest the deep immorality of the court’s ruling.”

The case turns on whether Mr Grayling acted lawfully in applying a temperature limit of 2C warming rather than the Paris Agreement aim of 1.5C.

In his statement, Mr Crosland said: “The government was right to accept the Court of Appeal’s verdict. The Supreme Court’s judgment, which has legitimised Mr Grayling’s use of the deadly 2C threshold, has betrayed us all.”

Since the Appeal Court’s ruling, Heathrow has slumped from its long-held position as the busiest airport in Europe. The airport’s owners contend that a third runway will be needed to accommodate growth after the coronavirus crisis, but it will not open before 2030.

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/heathrow-airport-supreme-court-third-runway-b1774399.html

Take off for Heathrow’s new runway: Supreme Court will approve expansion of Britain’s busiest airport, claims lawyer ahead of ruling

Five Supreme Court Justices to rule on Heathrow Airport’s expansion tomorrow

Plan to build a third runway was declared unlawful on environmental grounds

Country’s top court is set to overturn the earlier decision, a lawyer has claimed

Tim Crosland broke a legal embargo to reveal the judge’s decision earlier today

By EMER SCULLY     FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 17:47, 15 December 2020

The Supreme Court will approve Heathrow’s new runway, a lawyer has claimed ahead of the judge’s ruling tomorrow.

A panel of five justices at the UK’s highest court are set to allow Heathrow Airport to expand by building a third runway, according to Tim Crosland, a lawyer involved in the campaign against the plans.

The judges are due to rule on the case at 9.45am tomorrow but Mr Crosland decided to break a legal embargo ‘as an act of civil disobedience’.

The plans were declared unlawful on environmental grounds by the Court of Appeal in February and in October the Supreme Court heard a challenge over the Government’s decision to give the go-ahead for the third runway at a two-day hearing.

The country’s top court is set to push the plans through, said Mr Crosland.

‘I am breaking the court embargo on Heathrow to protest against the injustice of the verdict, which is a betrayal of the younger generation and those on the frontline of the crisis in the UK and around the world,’ Mr Crosland said.

Heathrow, west of London, is Britain’s biggest airport and prior to the pandemic was the busiest hub in Europe. During the crisis it lost that crown to Paris but it still wants to expand, allowing it to benefit from the post-COVID-19 travel recovery.

The new runway northwest of Heathrow’s existing pair was recommended by the Davies Commission in 2015. The airport’s capacity would increase drastically from 480,000 takeoffs and landings each year to around 740,000 if the third runway were to be built.

The judge in the ruling in February said a failure to take into account the British government’s commitments on climate change was ‘legally fatal’ to the plans.

Lawyers for Heathrow Airport Ltd told the court in October that the firm, which owns and operates the London airport, still wishes to go ahead with the expansion project.

Demonstrators against a third Heathrow runway gathered outside the Royal Courts of Justice, London, in October. A panel of five Supreme Court justices are due to determine whether the decision to support the expansion of Heathrow Airport was unlawful

But they said that construction could not be completed until 2030 at the earliest, even if work begins in the near future.

Addressing the court at the outset of the hearing, Lord Anderson QC, representing Heathrow, said: ‘My instructions are very clear on this – Heathrow Airport Ltd does still wish to construct the north-west runway.’

The firm is challenging a Court of Appeal ruling given in February which cast doubt on the future of the proposed expansion.

Three leading judges concluded that former transport secretary Chris Grayling failed to take account of the Government’s commitments to tackling climate change when setting out support for the project in an Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS).

Lords Justice Lindblom, Singh and Haddon-Cave said the ANPS was unlawful because Mr Grayling failed to take account of the Government’s commitment to the Paris Agreement – which commits signatories to tackling climate change by taking measures to limit global warming to well below 2C.

The Supreme Court will determine whether the decision to support the expansion was unlawful as a result of the Government’s failure to take account of the UK’s climate change commitments.

Lord Anderson argued that the Court of Appeal made a mistake in concluding that the Paris Agreement constituted Government policy and that the ANPS was unlawful.

The airport’s challenge was opposed by environmental charities Friends of the Earth and Plan B Earth – both of which argued that the appeal should be dismissed by the Supreme Court.

The Court of Appeal considered the case following a challenge by a group of councils in London affected by the expansion, environmental charities including Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and Plan B Earth, and London mayor Sadiq Khan.

Following the ruling, campaigners hailed it as a victory, saying it had ‘killed off’ plans for a third runway for good and that the project is now ‘politically unacceptable’.

The effect of the ruling, which overturned a previous High Court decision made in May last year, was that current Transport Secretary Grant Shapps would have to review the ANPS to ensure it accords with the commitments on climate change.

The Government did not oppose the court’s declaration that the ANPS was unlawful and did not seek permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9056307/Take-Heathrows-new-runway-Supreme-Court-approve-expansion.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailUK

.

.

 

Share this:

Share on LinkedIn

Posted: Wednesday, December 16th, 2020. Filed in Climate Change News, General News, News about Airports, Recent News.