Greenpeace Limited, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero & Anor

19 October 2023

[2023] EWHC 2608 (Admin)

High Court

Two groups sued the government over new oil and gas licenses, saying the government didn't properly consider the impact of burning the oil and gas (the pollution from cars, etc.). The judge said the government's approach was reasonable, and dismissed the case.

Key Facts

•Two judicial review claims challenged decisions regarding the 33rd licensing round for offshore oil and gas exploration and production.
•A central issue was whether the Secretary of State unlawfully excluded "scope 3" (downstream) GHG emissions from his assessment.
•The claimants were Greenpeace and Uplift, environmental organizations.
•The Secretary of State's policy was outlined in the Offshore Energy Plan, requiring a strategic environmental assessment (SEA).
•The Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) granted licenses.
•The Climate Change Act 2008 (CCA 2008) sets a net-zero target for the UK.
•The Checkpoint, a non-statutory policy document, was used to assess climate compatibility.
•Test 5 of the Checkpoint, which considered downstream emissions, was omitted.
•The 33rd licensing round offered 898 blocks and could lead to over 100 licenses.

Legal Principles

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) requirements under the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (SI 2004 No. 1633).

2004 Regulations

The principle of rationality in judicial review.

Common Law

Duty to give reasons in judicial review (common law).

Common Law (R (CPRE) v Dover District Council [2018] 1 WLR 108)

The OGA's mandate to maximize economic recovery of UK petroleum under the Petroleum Act 1998 (PA 1998).

PA 1998

Net-zero target under the Climate Change Act 2008.

CCA 2008

Outcomes

Claims for judicial review dismissed.

The court found the Secretary of State's decisions were not irrational or unlawful. The exclusion of scope 3 emissions from the SEA was justified because there wasn’t sufficient causal connection between the Plan and downstream emissions. The omission of Test 5 from the Checkpoint was also deemed lawful. No common law duty to give reasons existed for the application of the Checkpoint.

Greenpeace Limited, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero & Anor

Key Facts

Legal Principles

Outcomes

Similar Cases

R (on the application of Finch on behalf of the Weald Action Group) v Surrey County Council and others

Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors

Dr Andrew Boswell, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero

Friends Of The Earth Limited v Secretary Of State For Levelling Up, Housing And Communities & Ors

Friends of the Earth & Ors v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero