NEW PRIME MINISTER Gordon Brown acted unlawfully during his first appearance at the despatch box for Prime Minister's Questions, according to lawyers acting for Greenpeace.
Following a High Court decision earlier this year, no government decision to support new nuclear power stations can lawfully be made before a public consultation has been carried out. However, during PMQs on Wednesday, Gordon Brown ignored the Court's ruling and sabotaged the ongoing consultation by stating that: "We have made the decision to continue with nuclear power."
As a result of Greenpeace’s successful legal challenge to the 2006 energy review consultation process, the government has been forced back to the drawing board to conduct what should be a comprehensive and necessarily lengthy review on whether to support new nuclear plants.
This short paper sets out some of the key questions which must be addressed as part of this consultation, and some of the information requirements to support a proper consultation on a new build nuclear programme.
Posted by bex — 8 February 2007 at 11:34am
-
Comments
The government's decision to back a new fleet of nuclear power stations in the UK was "legally flawed", the High Court has heard.
In the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Greenpeace will argue that the government's recent energy review was not the "fullest public consultation" it had committed itself to before making a decision to back new nuclear power stations. The commitment had been made in the earlier energy white paper in 2003.
By decentralising our energy system, we could double the efficiency of our power stations. Decentralised energy is cleaner, cheaper and more secure than nuclear power, and can do far more to combat climate change.
Greenpeace today announced that it will ask the House of Lords to consider its case that the war against Iraq was an illegal act of aggression (1).
The move follows today's Appeal ruling that the 14 Greenpeace protestors who engaged in protests to prevent the build up to war could not appeal on the basis that they were preventing individuals from committing war crimes (1). This was one of the two key legal arguments that the protestors tried to use in their initial court case, the other being that the war itself was illegal under international law.
Posted by bex — 4 February 2004 at 9:00am
-
Comments
Greenpeace hailed a Paris judge's ruling permitting the use of a parody of the Esso logo on its StopEsso website as a victory for freedom of expression on the internet, as well as for the climate.
