Chris Packham loses bid for legal challenge over HS2

Chris Packham
Support us and go ad-free

Chris Packham has lost a Court of Appeal bid to bring a legal challenge against the government over the controversial HS2 rail scheme.

The TV presenter had argued there were failings in the way the government reached its decision to give the project the go-ahead.

He took his fight to the Court of Appeal after being refused permission in April by two judges sitting in the High Court for a full judicial review over the government’s decision to approve the scheme.

But in a ruling on 31 July, three senior judges upheld the High Court’s decision and dismissed Packham’s claim.

In a statement after the ruling, Packham said he was “deeply disappointed” by the decision.

Giving the court’s ruling, Lord Justice Lindblom said the court “rejected both of Mr Packham’s substantive grounds of appeal as unarguable”.

The written judgment noted that the “essential issues” in Packham’s claim were “whether the Government erred in law by misunderstanding or ignoring local environmental concerns and failing to examine the environmental effects of HS2 as it ought to have done” and “whether the Government erred in law by failing to take account of the effect of the project on greenhouse gas emissions between now and 2050, in the light of the Government’s obligations under the Paris Agreement and the Climate Change Act 2008”.

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free

An artist’s impression of an HS2 train on the Birmingham and Fazeley viaduct
An artist’s impression of an HS2 train on the Birmingham and Fazeley viaduct (HS2/PA)

At a hearing in July, lawyers for the environmental campaigner had told the Court of Appeal that a major review of the project gave a “very incomplete assessment of environmental matters” which meant the government gave the scheme the green light based on a “complete misapprehension” of the environmental impact.

In written submissions, David Wolfe QC, for Packham, argued that ministers would have proceeded with making a decision on HS2 on the basis that the report from the government-commissioned Oakervee Review would have explained what they needed to know about the environmental impacts of the project, when in fact, it did not.

The Oakervee Review was set up to examine whether and how HS2 should proceed.

Wolfe said: “The report gave a very incomplete assessment of environmental matters. That mattered, because it meant the decision-maker Secretary of State then proceeded (when balancing its various pros and cons) on a complete misapprehension of the existence and/or scale of the environmental impacts of the scheme.”

Timothy Mould QC, barrister for the government, argued that Packham’s claim should be dismissed.

In court documents, he said the High Court judges were right to dismiss the claim and argued that it “has no realistic prospect of success”.

Mould also said: “It is simply fanciful for the appellant to assume that the first respondent (the Secretary of State for Transport) knew nothing about the public legislative and procedural history of HS2, including the comprehensive assessment of environmental impacts undertaken in accordance with parliamentary procedures, beyond that which was drawn to his attention by the report itself.”

In his statement, Packham said: “Obviously we are deeply disappointed by today’s ruling. But the fact is, we are a world away from the place we were when we issued the original claim for judicial review.

“Covid-19 has turned the state of the UK finances and the public’s attitudes towards climate change upside down.

“People now see that a scheme for a railway which will tear up the countryside so that we can shave a few minutes off a journey time, makes no sense in the contemporary workplace.

“The HS2 project is not about the future, it’s about preserving a past which has now changed so radically since the pandemic.”

HS2 is a new high-speed rail network that, when completed, should connect London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, along with other points in the country.

Support us and go ad-free

We need your help to keep speaking the truth

Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.

Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.

We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.

In return, you get:

* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop

Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.

With your help we can continue:

* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do

We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?

The Canary Support us
  • Show Comments
    1. So three high court judges, who wil become or already are unelected Lords, have given their judgement that black is white and white is black in accordance with the British State’s opinion that black being white is as it has always been. The reality of the Government’s decision was never in doubt or of doubtful contrivance. It’s obvious that the whole of Ukanian society will derive benefits from the few minutes taken off journey times and the removal of our countryside, said a Government stooge.

    2. Only Tory Justice left, who cares about the countryside or wildlife? Some people have made huge profits already because their London House was in the way of the HS2 line. Another wasteful project, that only the rich will be able to use. Use zoom instead.

    3. What about the ‘China connection’ in or with HS2? Didn’t China buy British Steel which formerly found itself in ‘difficulty’ after China flooded world markets with cheap steel – subsequently then seeing China offering to build HS2 at a cheaper rate than hitherto by other contractors? Convenient eh to have British Steel out of the way with China then able to use its own cheaper steel in building HS2? Wouldn’t it ironic if former British Steel produced steel for HS2 if China manages to swing that deal too?

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.