High Court Rules Government’s Climate Action Plan as Unlawful
Government lawyers argued that Grant Shapps had ‘sufficient information’ to support his approval of the Carbon Budget Delivery Plan.
The High Court ruled that the government’s climate plan was unlawful because the net zero minister approved it without adequate evidence to assess the deliverability of policies to reduce carbon emissions.
Mr. Justice Sheldon, on Friday, sided with the Good Law Project and environmental charities Friends of the Earth and ClientEarth, stating that Grant Shapps’s decision lacked justification based on the evidence available.
The judge noted that the then-secretary of state for net zero could not determine which policies could be delivered or which would fail based on the vague and unquantified information provided in the draft plan. This lack of information did not provide Mr. Shapps with the necessary details to justify the approval of the CBDP.
Mr. Justice Sheldon concluded that if the secretary of state had assumed all proposals and policies would be fully delivered, then the decision was based on a mistaken understanding of the situation.
The government’s lawyers contended that Grant Shapps, during his tenure at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, had sufficient and rational information to support his approval of the CBDP.
Although the CBDP continues to be government policy, DESNZ’s current secretary of state, Claire Coutinho, will issue a new report within a year following the High Court’s ruling.
Risk Tables Had Not Been Scrutinised
Friends of the Earth, ClientEarth, and the Good Law Project argued in February that Mr. Shapps lacked accurate information on the risks associated with implementing the strategies and meeting emission targets within the specified deadlines.
The group claimed that the plans contained a misleading summary, with some risk tables being altered to remove critical information about the feasibility of the proposals.
These tables were not shared with the public, parliament, or climate organizations for scrutiny, further undermining the transparency of the decision-making process.
Second High Court Victory
This ruling marked the second High Court victory for the group against the government’s climate policies, following a previous ruling in 2022 that deemed the Net Zero Strategy unlawful due to insufficient briefing of ministers on achieving carbon emissions targets.
Lawyer Katie de Kauwe from Friends of the Earth emphasized the significance of the Climate Change Act in holding the government accountable for meeting legal obligations to reduce emissions and stressed the need for a credible and lawful action plan to realign climate goals.
DESNZ’s spokesperson highlighted that the judgment did not criticize the detailed plans in place and expressed disagreement with using a court case to drive progress towards the net-zero goal.
Legal Challenge to Rishi Sunak’s Target Rollbacks
Besides the legal challenges by environmental groups, BBC presenter Chris Packham initiated a High Court challenge against the government following Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s decision to delay targets on heat pumps and new electric car sales.
Represented by law firm Leigh Day, Mr. Packham argued that the policy changes contravened the Climate Change Act and were essential for the UK’s net-zero commitments, necessitating proper process and consultation.
The DESNZ spokesperson refuted these claims and vowed to defend against the challenge, with the High Court hearing scheduled later in the year.
PA Media and Owen Evans contributed to this report.
