Fashion designers are bringing the first legal case against national fracking

Vivienne Westwood and Joe Corre protesting fracking
Support us and go ad-free

The first case against the government’s national fracking policy has begun in the High Court. The aim is to challenge the very arguments the government makes in support of the industry. But it’s being brought by mother and son fashion designers.

Fracking in court

The campaign group Talk Fracking is led by fashion designer Joe Corré. It’s currently in court applying for a judicial review of the government’s fracking policy. The case is based around the fact that Corré and Talk Fracking question the legality of certain policy decisions the government has taken. It began on Tuesday 18 December, along with a challenge from Friends of the Earth. The High Court is hearing the cases together as they are both challenging one specific area.

Outside the court on 18 December, Corré, along with his mother Vivienne Westwood and other campaigners, staged a demo. They recreated the Nativity, but in the context of fracking:

Vivienne Westwood outside the High Ciurt

Vivienne Westwood as an angel

They were also highlighting that there are only 12 Christmases until climate breakdown could be too late to stop. This is based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which said that unless global warming is got under control by 2030, then the consequences could be dire:

Vivienne Westwood and Joe Corre

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free

Westwood said in a statement for The Canary:

Democracy isn’t working. 80% of British people don’t want fracking. Our government is overriding public opinion and local government, poisoning God’s world.

But the heart of the case is ultimately whether fracking should even take place at all.

Government claims

Campaign group Friends of the Earth describes fracking as:

a process to extract oil or gas from shale rock… A mixture of water, sand and chemicals is pumped down the well at very high pressure. This fractures the rock and when the pressure is released, the gas or oil flows back up the well.

The government says fracking could give the UK “greater energy security, economic growth and jobs”. It claims it’s “encouraging” companies to explore fracking in a “safe and environmentally sound” way.

Mired in controversy

But the industry is very controversial. Along with its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, it has been linked to polluted drinking water. Studies have also shown links to low birth weights, premature births and a possible increased risk of breast cancer. But there is also the issue of earthquakes.

At one site in Lancashire there have now been over 50 seismic events since fracking company Cuadrilla started drilling in mid October. It claims the tremors are harmless. But some experts believe that they could lead to larger earthquakes.

It’s this backdrop of controversy which underscores Talk Fracking’s case. But it is specifically challenging the government’s policy positions on the industry.

The government’s position

The case is citing two particular government actions. Firstly, a written statement made in May by secretary of state for business, energy and industrial strategy Greg Clark. The statement instructs local authorities not to set:

restrictions or thresholds across their plan area that limit shale development without proper justification.

Then, on 24 July, the government released its revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which includes updates on fracking. One particular section related to fracking states that authorities should:

recognise the benefits of on-shore oil and gas development, including unconventional hydrocarbons, for the security of energy supplies and supporting the transition to a low-carbon economy; and put in place policies to facilitate their exploration and extraction…

As DrillOrDrop reported, the guidance (and Clark’s statement in May) effectively relaxed the rules around fracking.

Talk Fracking’s challenge

But Talk Fracking is questioning all of the above. It has several concerns that Clark and the NPPF guidance have breached the law; namely, that they show failures to:

  • Conduct a strategic environmental assessment.
  • Adhere to existing Climate Change Act 2008 obligations to reduce greenhouse emissions.
  • Consult on a fair basis.
  • Review three years of advanced scientific developments.

Talk Fracking’s legal case, seen by The Canary, makes very specific points. For example, it talks at length about the government’s obligations under the Climate Change Act; particularly to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050.

Three tests

In March 2017, independent government advisers the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) said that for fracking to proceed, three tests have to be passed:

  • Emissions must be strictly limited during shale gas development, production and well decommissioning.
  • Overall gas consumption must remain in line with UK carbon budgets. The production of UK shale gas must displace imports, rather than increase gas consumption.
  • Emissions from shale gas production must be accommodated within UK carbon budgets. Emissions from shale exploitation will need to be offset by emissions reductions in other areas of the economy to ensure UK carbon budgets are met.

Talk Fracking says that the government has failed to show evidence on how it would meet these three tests if fracking is allowed to proceed nationally. It also says that the NPPF was drawn up in relation to fracking exploration, whereas the CCC’s three tests are for the production stage.


Talk Fracking’s lawyers Leigh Day said in a statement:

This legal challenge exposes a major democratic deficit in the system. The government announced in 2015 that fracking is a force for good against climate change, without any public involvement in their policy. Three years later, and despite our client’s submissions which pointed out all the scientific developments since 2015 that seriously call [into] question [the] government’s position, they reached the same conclusion. Our client argues that this is unfair. We hope that the Court will agree and conclude that the government’s new fracking policy was unlawfully produced.

The Canary asked the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) for comment but received none.

‘Pulling the wool’ over fracking

Corré is unswerving in his opposition to fracking. He previously told The Canary‘s Topple Uncaged podcast:

The secretary of state has a duty of care when issuing a ministerial statement that is given substantial weight in local planning decisions… They renewed a ministerial statement that was made… four years earlier, about how fracking is a potential ‘bridging fuel’ to a low-carbon economy; didn’t look at any evidence, even though we had, as Talk Fracking… certainly supplied new evidence that showed, far from it being a bridging fuel, it actually exacerbates climate change and is a major contributor to climate change… There is no argument left, whatsoever, for any kind of fossil-fuel bridge to a low-carbon economy…

We’re just trying to… hold ministers and government to account… They’ve just tried to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes and push these things through… We’re not going to stand for it.

It’s not clear when the court will decide if the judicial review can go ahead. But the weight of evidence against fracking is strong. So, Corré and Talk Fracking’s case could be crucial in bringing about the end of this industry in the UK.

Featured image and additional images via 6 Hillgrove PR/Ki Price/Getty Images 

Support us and go ad-free

Get involved

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. Sheer ignorance by the government about the consequences . Interference with the watertable will happen, and is a proven reality.
      A righteous bliss one is right so no need for facts to intrude must be the policy . A bridging fuel has nothing to do with your drinking water source. yet seems to be spoken of as one in the same thing.
      Fracked until your frucked.

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.