Chris Packham pursues legal action over HS2

Support us and go ad-free

A major review of the HS2 rail scheme gave a “very incomplete assessment of environmental matters”, the Court of Appeal has been told.

This meant that the government gave the green light to the scheme based on a “complete misapprehension” of the environmental impact, lawyers for Chris Packham argue.

The TV presenter is pursuing a legal challenge at the Court of Appeal against the government over its decision to give the go-ahead to HS2.

Packham took his case to the High Court in April seeking an emergency injunction to stop works he claimed would cause destruction or “irreversible and irreparable loss” to ancient woodland sites.

He applied for the order as part of his attempt to bring a legal challenge against the government over HS2.

But two senior judges refused Packham permission to bring a claim against the government’s decision and did not grant the injunction.

Announcing the court’s decision, Lord Justice Coulson said: “This application has no realistic prospect of success, so we do not grant permission to bring judicial review proceedings.”

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free

Packham was given permission to appeal against the High Court ruling and his case is being heard by three leading judges in a remote hearing on Wednesday.

The well-known environmental campaigner is not repeating his application for an injunction.

Lawyers for Packham argue that there were failings in the way the government reached its decision to give the HS2 project the go-ahead.

The government is opposing the challenge.

At the High Court hearing, government lawyers argued Packham’s legal challenge did not have a real prospect of success and should not be allowed to proceed.

In written submissions to the Court of Appeal, 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.”

He also said Packham’s case is that “the defendants were told (and so would have proceeded from an understanding) that the Oakervee Report in fact set out a sufficient account for their purposes of the environmental impacts, when in fact it had not done so”.

Wolfe added: “This misunderstanding affected the weight they would have given to the report’s conclusions in their decision-making.”

He added: “The simple point is that the secretary of state proceeded on a misunderstanding of (or an error of fact as to) the environmental impacts of HS2 when he came to decide whether it should proceed.”

In papers before the court, Wolfe argued that when making the decision on HS2, the government “failed to have regard to the implications” to the Paris Agreement on Climate Change – an environmental accord adopted by many nations, including the UK.

He later said: “The appellant’s complaint is not that the secretary of state was not aware that HS2 would contribute significantly to climate change in the period up to 2050 (he was), but that he was not told of, and did not take into account, the legal implications of that for the UK’s international ‘Paris’ obligations (and indeed some of its domestic obligations).

“He failed to take into account the Paris Agreement when making this decision.”

The appeal is being heard by Lord Justice Lindblom, Lord Justice Haddon-Cave and Lord Justice Green.

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.

The hearing is due to last for one day.

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