Georgina Downs MR
Award-winning environmental campaigner, Georgina Downs has scored another victory this morning in her ongoing David v Goliath legal battle against the Government over pesticides.
For the last 8 years, Ms. Downs, who runs the UK Pesticides Campaign (www.pesticidescampaign.co.uk), has been campaigning to highlight the Government’s inherent fundamental failure to protect rural residents and communities from exposure to toxic pesticides sprayed near homes, schools, children playgrounds and other premises.
In November last year Ms. Downs won a historic and landmark High Court victory against the Government over its fundamental failure to protect
people in the countryside from pesticides.
The High Court Judgment from Mr. Justice Collins handed down on 14th November 2008 was very clear that the Government has been acting unlawfully in its policy and approach in relation to the use of pesticides in crop spraying, and that public health, in particular rural residents and communities exposed to pesticides from living in the locality to regularly sprayed fields, is not being protected (and this applies to both acute effects and chronic long term adverse
health effects).
The Judgment had concluded that Ms. Downs had produced “solid evidence that residents have suffered harm to their health”, particularly in relation to acute effects, and that “a different approach” should have been adopted and accordingly there has “been both a failure to have regard to material considerations and a failure to apply the [European] Directive properly.”
The Order subsequently issued by Mr. Justice Collins on 15th December 2008 ordered that: (1) A Declaration that DEFRA is not acting in compliance with Directive 91/414 EEC in the respects identified in the judgment, and that (2) DEFRA must reconsider and as necessary amend its policy in accordance with the terms of the judgment.
The Government applied to appeal the High Court decision and the 4 day Court of Appeal case will take place later this year. However, when granting permission to appeal Justice Collins made it clear that he did not think that an appeal had a real prospect of success.
Since the High Court Judgment was issued in November 2008, the Government has sought 3 times for a “stay” of the Judgment and subsequent Order citing various reasons for preserving the status quo all notably related to alleged financial and economic impacts on pesticide manufacturers, farmers and distributors, or the impact on agricultural productivity, if there are any changes to the current policy and approach for pesticides and the related approvals system.
The Government’s application for a “stay” was first refused by Mr. Justice Collins in his Order on 15th December 2008.
Following the Government’s renewed application for a “stay” to the Court of Appeal it was refused again on 5th February 2009 by Lord Justice Laws on the papers that had been submitted. This predominantly related to a Witness Statement produced by Kerr Wilson, the Chief Executive of the Pesticides Safety Directorate (the PSD), the Government regulators for pesticides, and a Witness Statement in response by Georgina Downs.
The Government renewed its application for a “stay” for the 3rd time for an oral hearing before one Court of Appeal Lord Justice. The oral hearing took place this morning, 4th March 2009, between 10am and 11.30am. The renewed application again pitted the Chief Executive of the PSD against Georgina Downs in further Witness Statements from each, citing the arguments for granting or refusing a stay respectively.
In refusing the Government’s 3rd application for a “stay” at today’s oral hearing, Lord Justice Sullivan said it was clear that the Government had not initiated any action thus far as a result of the High Court Judgment and Order. He stated that whilst the Government’s “Plan A” was to appeal and hope that the Judgment goes in their favour in the forthcoming Court of Appeal case, the Government clearly had no “Plan B” in relation to its response if its appeal fails. He said that a “stay” could not be granted on the basis that the Government sees the High Court Judgment as an a “inconvenience” that it “doesn’t like.”
Speaking after this morning’s ruling Georgina Downs stated, “The Government’s relentless attempts to protect the industry as opposed to the health of its citizens were again abundantly clear in the 2 Witness Statements produced by the Chief Executive of the PSD. It is striking that, despite such a significant and landmark High Court ruling, that found the Government failing in its legal obligation to protect human health, (particularly rural residents), that neither
Witness Statement of Mr. Wilson displayed any concern whatsoever in relation to securing the protection of public health, nor seemingly any genuine desire to rectify the Government’s policy in accordance with the terms of the judgment.”
Ms. Downs goes on to state, “In a legal framework such as this, a balancing of interests is not permitted, for example, ‘balancing’ harm (or the risk of harm) to human health with the supposed benefits of pesticides, such as cost or economic benefits for farmers and the chemical industry, and public health protection must be paramount. I am very pleased that the legal system in this country continues to rule against the Government’s position on this issue, a position which has already seen many decades of inaction over pesticides, and acute and chronic adverse impacts on the health and lives of many rural
residents as a result.”
Contact: Georgina Downs
UK Pesticides Campaign
www.pesticidescampaign.co.uk
