Lawyers Declare They Will Refuse to Prosecute Climate Activists
Activist lawyers have signed a “Declaration of Conscience” stating they will not prosecute groups like Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil, saying that current laws cause “climate injustice.”
On Thursday, a group called Lawyers Are Responsible, published a Declaration of Conscience, in which they say they will refuse to act for new fossil fuel projects or to prosecute members of campaign groups opposing new fossil fuel projects, such as Extinction Rebellion, Insulate Britain, and Just Stop Oil.
Climate group Just Stop Oil stages disruptive protests and uses a deliberate law-breaking strategy in an attempt to highlight its call for the UK government to begin the process of winding down fossil fuel production in the country.
According to Twitter, Lawyers Are Responsible says it is a group of “conscientious lawyers who respect the longstanding rules of our profession.”
“However, we also accept the global scientific consensus that climate change is already causing damage and will cause unprecedented levels of damage,” it said.
‘Our Laws Cause Climate Injustice’
To date, the 120 signatories are a mix of barristers, solicitors, academics, and others, though it is not clear how many of the barristers listed handle prosecution work.
Those that have signed include Sir Geoffrey Bindman, chair of the British Institute of Human Rights, Farhana Yamin, an international environmental lawyer and one of the architects of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, Imran Khan the solicitor who represented the family of Stephen Lawrence, Jolyon Maugham, founder of the Good Law Project and Professor Leslie Thomas, Gresham Professor of Law and a board member of the Bar Standards Board.
“The signatories to the declaration are convinced that at the present time offering their services in support of new fossil fuel projects or action against peaceful climate protesters would not serve the greater good,” the group wrote.
“At present, our laws cause climate injustice and set society on a course with consequences so dire that they ultimately threaten the Rule of Law itself. By taking on these types of case [sic], the signatories are of the view that they would be personally facilitating these consequences,” it added.
The group said that there “is an important discussion to be had about the role of the legal profession at a time when the IPCC has delivered a ‘final warning’ on the climate crisis.”
Cab Rank
The news prompted the chair of the Bar Standards Board, the representative body for barristers in England and Wales, to post a statement about the importance of the cab-rank rule, which is designed to ensure that everyone can have access to legal advice.
“If a self-employed barrister receives instructions from a professional client, and the instructions are appropriate taking into account their experience, seniority, and area of practice, they are generally obliged to accept those instructions irrespective of the identity of the client, the nature of their case and any belief they may have as to the client’s character or cause,” wrote the Bar Council.
Legal commentator Tony Dowson told The Epoch Times by email that the effect could be “to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in the profession.”
“There are several exceptions to the Cab Rank rule, one of which allows barristers to refuse instructions which are outside their field of practice,” he said.
“Since Jolyon Maugham is not a criminal barrister, let alone a prosecutor, his declaration that he will refuse instructions to prosecute climate protesters seems very much to be an empty gesture,” said Dowson.
Dowson said that the statement itself, however, is at “risk of undermining the principle that barristers should not be identified with their clients, which is inherent in the cab rank rule and the duty placed on barristers not to withhold services because the nature of the case is objectionable.”
“The effect may be to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in the profession,” he added.
Political Activist Argument
Anna Loutfi, a barrister and head of legal at the Bad Law Project, told The Epoch Times there were concerns about one-sided political activism in the legal system.
The Bad Law Project was set up by actor and activist Laurence Fox and family law barrister Sarah Phillimore.
“So when they present an argument, that’s a political activist argument, and they say we can interfere with the legal system on the basis of our political views, their political views from the left, that isn’t seen as an attack on the legal system. But if somebody from the other side of that argument does the same, then I think they would be very much at risk of being struck off as practicing lawyers,” she said.
“A lot of people in this country think that eco-warriors are criminals, and they commit criminal damage and that the people that they attack would want to address that damage through the criminal courts,” added Loutfi.
The Epoch Times contacted a representative for Lawyers Are Responsible and Jolyon Maugham for comment.
