Leading barristers have defied bar rules by signing a declaration saying they will not prosecute climate protesters or act for companies pursuing fossil fuel projects.
They are among more than 120 mostly English lawyers who have signed a declaration vowing to “withhold [their] services in respect of supporting new fossil fuel projects and action against climate protesters exercising their right of peaceful protest”.
Noting that climate breakdown represents “a serious risk to the rule of law”, the so-called “declaration of conscience” calls on legal professionals “to act urgently to do whatever they can to address the causes and consequences of the climate and ecological crises and to advance a just transition”.
Jolyon Maugham KC, the head of the Good Law Project and a key signatory of the declaration, told the Guardian: “Like big tobacco, the fossil fuel industry has known for decades what its activities mean. They mean the loss of human life and property – which the civil law should prevent but does not.
Maugham famously boasted on twitter that he once clubbed a fox to death in his own back garden yet he faced no charges for it.
“The scientific evidence is that global heating, the natural and inevitable consequence of its actions, will cause the deaths of huge numbers of people. The criminal law should punish this but it does not. Nor does the law recognise a crime of ecocide to deter the destruction of the planet. The law works for the fossil fuel industry – but it does not work for us.”
Eighteen barristers, including six king’s counsel, have signed the declaration. They will now self-refer to the Bar Standards Board for breaking the profession’s “cab rank” rule, which specifies that a barrister must take a case they are qualified for, provided they are available to do so.
On Friday they were accused of undermining a key principle of the legal system: that everyone is entitled fair and impartial legal representation.
Nick Vineall KC, the chair of the Bar Council of England and Wales, said: “The cab rank rule prevents discrimination and improves access to justice. It means that barristers sometimes have to represent people they disapprove of or disagree with. But the flip side is that clients can have the barrister they choose. It is for judges or juries to decide who is right and who is wrong, not barristers. Should a barrister be allowed to refuse to defend a climate change activist because they happen to disagree with that activist’s style of protest? I don’t think so.”
Unity News Network (UNN) Staff Writer | To find out more details about our staff, please head to the About Us section on our website.
