Climate change isn’t just an environmental issue. It’s a public law failure. 

This crisis we are living through is shaped by countless government decisions:  what can be built or extracted, where resources and funding flow, who is protected from harm, and who is left to bear the risks. And as ever, those least responsible for the damage being caused are paying the highest prices.  

Many communities are already experiencing devastating impacts, while climate breakdown threatens to deepen inequalities across housing, health, migration, and access to justice. These harms compound and reinforce one another. 

Public Law Project has always been about protecting rights and fighting for justice. Over the years, that mission has taken many forms. We have used public law to challenge unfair decision-making,  to hold public bodies to account, and to stand alongside people and communities most often shut out of power. 

For the first time, PLP‘s strategy now explicitly includes climate change. The reason is simple: justice. Climate change magnifies injustice, and public law is one of the few tools capable of exposing and confronting the decisions that drive environmental harm. 

As interim CEO of PLP, I am truly excited about this new chapter of our work — one shaped by experience, grounded in justice, and focused on how public law can meet the realities of the climate crisis.  

Communities, public law, and environmental decision-making 

Having spent over a decade at Friends of the Earth, working in roles ranging from community organiser to CEO, I saw first-hand how public decisions can profoundly affect communities — sometimes offering protection and opportunity, but too often exacerbating harm and exclusion.  

I had the opportunity to work at both ends of the scale: from the UN climate talks where international legal treaties bring nations together to tackle shared challenges, to communities far removed from the corridors of power but on the frontline of environmental struggles. 

Across that spectrum, I saw communities empowered to take on the state through judicial reviews and planning inquiries. I saw people stand up for their rights and use the courts to demonstrate that the law should be a tool for justice for all, and not something to wield power against those already marginalised. And I saw communities working alongside NGOs, lawyers, and campaigners to successfully challenge the fossil fuel industry time and again — most notably in defeating the insidious fracking industry. 

Many of these community-led victories did more than stop individual projects. They resulted in landmark legal rulings that improved decision-making and access to justice for everyone.  

One powerful example is the recent Supreme Court win by Sarah Finch and the Weald Action Group, which challenged the approval of fossil fuel extraction and set an important precedent for future cases. 

“The Weald Action Group turned to the law after years fighting oil extraction in our area. It was a big learning curve. I had no expectation that our fight over one oil development would have such a big impact. It’s exciting to be part of one of the increasing number of cases that are challenging the status quo on climate around the world. The law is a powerful tool for climate campaigners – and we need to defend it from regressive forces who want to use the law against us.” Sarah Finch (Campaigner, Weald Action Group) 

As PLP increasingly engages with environmental injustice, our long-standing commitment to standing alongside marginalised communities will remain central to our work. 

The intersection of climate, race, class, and justice 

PLP is proud to work in solidarity with marginalised groups, using our power, privilege, and expertise to help create a fairer society through public law. Much of this work has focused on immigration, where we have challenged unjust systems and policies that deny people safety, dignity, and fairness. 

We know that climate change will intensify these injustices, and we will see a rise in those looking for a safe haven as they flee from increasingly unsafe areas of the world. At the same time, it is working-class communities and racialised communities who are on the sharp end of environmental injustices. It is often poorer areas of society most blighted by air pollution or facing unwanted infrastructure projects at their doorstep. 

The connections between environmental harm, race, class, and inequality are clear, and PLP will be making and strengthening those links and joining forces with the movements for justice that span across them all.  

Environmental justice must be rooted in social justice, and public law has a critical role to play in achieving both. 

Our ‘Public Law and the Planet’ conference in March marks the beginning of a new chapter for us, bringing together these issues and showcasing how public law can be used to challenge environmental injustice and support movements for justice in all their forms. 

I hope you can join PLP as we explore this new work.

– Jamie Peters, Interim CEO of PLP

Image credit: Creative Commons / Ivan Radic

The post Climate change is a public law issue  appeared first on Public Law Project.

More commonly known as the Hillsborough Law, this landmark Bill seeks to create a legal duty called “the duty of candour and assistance” for public authorities to cooperate with, and tell the truth to, public inquiries. It is the fulfilment of the Government’s manifesto commitment to provide justice for the families of the Hillsborough disaster victims, who for decades faced at best obfuscation in their search for the truth.  

The delay to the Bill comes amidst widespread concerns about a new Government amendment to the Bill, which would have made the security services’ – for example, MI5 and MI6’s – cooperation subject to the approval of the head of the service. 

The Government’s pause provides a welcome opportunity for Ministers to reflect on how to amend the Bill more generally. Public Law Project (PLP) supports the Bill but believes it should be strengthened, particularly by extending the duty of candour and assistance to a wider range of accountability mechanisms beyond public inquiries and investigations, such as ombudsmen, commissioners, and inspectorates. (Read PLP’s full recommendations briefing here.) 

This legislation is the product of decades of campaigning and is a very welcome move. The victims’ families and supporters should be applauded for their tenacity and commitment to justice.  

The requirement to be candid – to be honest and transparent, to act in good faith, to be open to admitting mistakes, and to learn from errors – is an important part of public law. Indeed, public law has been described as a game best played “with all cards face upwards on the table”.  

For example, in judicial review – the process whereby a court determines whether a public body has complied with the law – there has long been an existing “duty of candour” requiring public bodies to disclose information to the court enabling the judge to assess the legality of the public body’s actions.  This is because judicial review, like many other public law mechanisms of accountability, is a “partnership based on a common aim, namely the maintenance of the highest standards of public administration” (R v Lancashire County Council ex p. Huddleston [1986] 2 All ER 941).  

It is essential for public confidence in state officials, justice for people who have been wronged by the state, and the search for truth that public bodies are candid and transparent in as many accountability mechanisms as possible. This is even more true when the public do not have equal access to the information or records held by public bodies and can face an obstructionist attitude to its release because of its embarrassing nature.  

A fair and inclusive society will not be achieved until everyone is entitled to truth and justice – especially people who are marginalised and most reliant on the state for the protection of their rights and dignity.  

The Government should use this pause in the Bill to urgently think about additional ways in which it could be strengthened. PLP’s recommendations are a first step in that direction. 

Read our House of Commons’ Report stage briefing.

_{Photo: Edmund Nigel Gall / CC}

The post The Hillsborough Law: Honesty, transparency and public law  appeared first on Public Law Project.

PLP Director Jo Hickman said: “The Justice Committee report rightly asserts that access to justice must be the primary focus for the court reform programme and that cost savings and efficiencies should come second.

“The recommendations reflect many of the concerns PLP raised in written and oral evidence to the Committee.

“This was a thorough inquiry and its report warrants serious consideration. We hope that the Ministry of Justice and HMCTS acknowledge and act on the recommendations the Justice Committee has made.”

Among the recommendations in the report that PLP supports are:

• A stop on further court closures until ‘robust independent analysis’ has been done on the effect of closures already implemented, with a ‘particular focus on access to justice’ (para 108)
• A revised benchmark of 1.5 hours travel time to court with an expectation that no user should need to leave their home earlier than 08.00 or return later than 18.00 (para 125)
• A halt to staffing cuts unless HMCTS is confident of being able to provide an acceptable level of service to court users (para 150)
• For sufficient staff to be based in court buildings to provide reassurance and expert, face-to-face guidance for court users (para 151), and
• An improvement in stakeholder engagement by the Ministry of Justice and HMCTS and greater rigour in analysing and reacting to feedback (para 198)

PLP also supports the Committee’s recommendation that reforms should be monitored and evaluated against:

• The impact on vulnerable and excluded groups
• Access to justice standards of (a) access to the formal legal system (b) access to a fair and effective hearing (c) access to a decision and (d) access to an outcome, and
• The impact on access to justice for digitally excluded and vulnerable people, with a particular focus on justice outcomes rather than on processes alone (para 210)

The Committee also recommended that HMCTS prioritises the development of effective and accessible technical solutions that support open justice. This must be done to ensure that open justice keeps pace with the evolution of digital and video-enabled processes that take justice out of conventional courtrooms. (para 167)

Director of the Public Law Project Jo Hickman said: “We welcome the finding that open justice is a centrally important principle and one which maintains the rule of law. Justice must be seen to be done. At the moment it is not clear how digitised court proceedings would uphold this principle. We are glad that the committee has recognised this and we support the recommendation for the development of solutions that will support open justice.

“Justice reform should aim to increase the accountability of public decision-makers, enhance the quality of decision-making, and improve access to justice. The introduction of online procedures may meet these aims if implemented well but, crucially, the impact of any reforms need to be fully understood before changes are made.”

Ends

About the Public Law Project

1. PLP was set up to ensure those marginalised through poverty, discrimination or disadvantage have access to public law remedies and can hold the state to account.
   
2. Our vision is a world in which individual rights are respected and public bodies act fairly and lawfully. 
   
3. Our mission is to improve public decision making and facilitate access to justice.
   
4. Our priorities are to:
   • Promote and preserve the Rule of Law
   • Ensure fair systems
   • Improve access to justice

Contact information

• Web:     https://publiclawproject.org.uk/
• Tweet:  @Publiclawprojct
• Email:    l.robins-grace@publiclawproject.org.uk
• Call:        07808 159200

The post COURT REFORM: COMMONS COMMITTEE SAYS ACCESS TO JUSTICE FIRST appeared first on Public Law Project.