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.