Thursday
Apr152010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Russell inquiry can't report the truth
Apr 15, 2010 Climate: Russell David Holland emails with the amazing news that the Russell panel is unable to publish his submission because of fears of claims of defamation claims. Here is what the panel told him:
Your submission has not yet been published as the Review's legal advice is that it could be open to a claim of defamation under English law if it publishes the current version of your submission, as it makes references to, and comments upon, a large number of individuals. The Review, unlike the UK Parliament’s Science and Technology Committee, does not have Parliamentary privilege.
This is a remarkable situation because, as Holland explains, it would also seem to prevent the panel actually finding against Jones et al:
Now the Russell Enquiry, in refusing to publish my evidence, will also be able to ignore it. Indeed if they are right that my submission is actionable and they were they to decide that what I have said is indeed true and reach the same conclusion and make the same comments about individuals, they too would be open to action in the courts.
If there are any legal minds reading this, your thoughts would be appreciated.
Reader Comments (23)
We can consider what the Russell Review has done is just another "trick" to hide the evidence.
Mr Holland's submission is in the 'public domain' by way of a parliamentary report. As such other bodies have a legitimate defence under English defamation laws if they publish the same material. It is the 'public domain' consideration that is important in law, not any notion of parliamentary privilege.
A more important point: Reports and remarks of Parliamentary proceedings attract qualified privilege under defamation laws. So any submission orginally made to parliament can be reported and remarked on by other bodies without risk.
So Mr Holland's submission is in the 'public domain' by way of a parliamentary reportsand can be reported and commented on by other bodies without risk of being sued. There is qualified privilege and if needed a further legitimate line of defence.
We know now that Sir Muir Russell, like Lord Oxburgh, is delibrately failing to address the concerns of those who have publicly criticised the behaviour of CRU scientists.
If it's true, then it's not defamation....
...and if it's true, the only people with anything to fear from a libel case are those who would not like all the gory details of their scam to come out in evidence in a real court of law, ie the perpetrators and those trying to whitewash their actions.
Hence the Russell Panel's reluctance to publish.
Thank you Andrew,
As I indicated on the earlier thread I am happy to send to any one who is interested a copy of the paper on a confidential basis and on the understanding that it will not be further distributed or published. I have set up a separate email address for this purpose - crusub@tesco.net.
I do indeed name individuals and allege that they did wrong. However I believe there is nothing in my submission that is not provably true from documents now in the public domain. Moreover I first put questions on these issues to the Secretary of the the IPCC on 27 May 2008, the same day that I made formal requests under FoIA/EIR to the Met Office and UEA.
That letter was never answered though two years later an apology for not answering was delivered via WGIII. As I reported yesterday essentially the same issues were put recently to the Chairman and Secretary of the IPCC together with the Co-Chair of Working Group One who was in charge of the assessment process and the WGI Technical Support Unit. I have had no answer to the questions I put.
The Emails released from UEA confirm that an unauthorised and non peer-reviewed stage was added to the Government and Expert Review of Working Group One for the purpose of being able to reject the the objection to the Wahl and Amman paper by several Expert Reviewers and the Reviewer for the Govt. of the USA . This was not made public at the time as all Expert Reviewers were bound by confidentiality agreements and the British Government as a Reviewer was not informed of it, according to UK 'focal point', Defra. The instruction from WGI to Lead Authors and Review Editors was one of the items of information specifically requested from the Met Office, UEA, Oxford and Reading but all refused. The Met Office and UEA both reinforced their refusal with the FoIA section 36 Ministerial exemption.
The spreadsheet released recently by UEA in connection with this extra non peer-reviewed stage indicates (if it has not been tampered with) that the Expert Review Comment from Stephen McIntyre was not passed to the Lead Authors for their consideration. This is in sharp contrast with what the IPCC Chairman told Australian TV viewers on 29 September 2009.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article7098157.ece
Science writer Simon Singh wins bitter libel battle by using the 'fair comment' defence.
Presumably this is exactly the same submission as published on the Parliament/Science and Technology web site.
David Holland, I can't find your email address, i would like to request a copy, can you pls post again. Thanks.
David from your earlier post you say you received an email from William at the ICCE with the request for your contact details.
“I am therefore writing to ask for your permission for the Review to publish contact details for you on the Review website so that interested parties may contact you and seek access to your submission directly”.
I am at a loss to understand the legal side of this but can’t the ICCE web site just post a link to the Parliament site where presumably your same submission is published.
For 'straightner' the my email for the submission is crusub@tesco.net. My usual email is not that hard to find but I have avoided putting it up in clear as I assume sooner or later a bot will get it.
For others thinking that my submission is exactly the same as I put to the HoC Committee, it is not exactly the same. I asked the Committee and had this reply.
Given the 3000 word limit of the HoC that submission was rather limited. The ICCE Review submission is comprehensive. The version I will now send has a revision that clarifies what "hide the decline" was about and notes that the post Bergen comments spread sheet is now released.
@martyn
"can’t the ICCE web site just post a link to the Parliament site where presumably your same submission is published."
Of course they can. If they WANT to.
But they just want to obfuscate, as usual.
As a US citizen and a lifelong admirer of England, I find this whole thing to be an absolute disgrace. Of course, I expect any official or academic inquiries in this country to be equally as contemptuous. Four years ago when I started reading CA, I had no idea what was going on in the climate science field. Now, disgusted and disheartened, I am truly appalled at the perversions we have seen. One, unfortunately, is not particularly surprised at large scale political corruption but there, at least, is the possibility of outspoken political opposition and of voter "revenge." Where is it in science? The pitifully few scientists who do speak up are ignored or dismissed in the media. Common sense and common understanding have disappeared from our visible dialogue. It is as if we are living in the midst of one of Ayn Rand's herethereto impossible fantasies. How do we close this book?
Bishop --
Unfortunately, British libel and slander law is fairly one-sided in reality, and that side is in favor of the "victim". I do suggest that the Bishop take a hard look at the latest absurdity from the High Court. You may have to crack down a bit more or less. Those [snip]s could be very expensive. Either you stop doing it, or get very heavy handed.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/08/user_comments_ruling/
Mr. Holland, I would love a copy ajstrata@strata-sphere.com.
Can you explain why you don't want this public (just curious really)?
AJStrata
@ AJStrata
The Review says it's legal advice is that some of the submission may be actionable. If so, publishing it may cause legal problems for David Holland. Unfortunately suggested reforms to UK libel law didn't make it through the wash-up, so actions in the UK remain risky and expensive.
"the Russell panel is unable to publish his submission because of fears of claims of defamation claims".
Presumably Russell asked Acton who consulted the Norwich Law School?
The unworthy thought occurs to me to take a page out of the Liberal Green Movement playbook and arrange for the submission to be leaked anonymously. Since the submission would still be officially unreleased, and still "legally" private opinion (which is not a crime, even in Jolly Olde Englandistan), no defamation charge could be leveled.
Besides, I bet the folks he "defames" have been called far, far worse by many folk.
If the libel laws are so stringent in England, what did this commission think it was going to accomplish? Why bother have an 'independent' review of anything?
"...The Review, unlike the UK Parliament’s Science and Technology Committee, does not have Parliamentary privilege..."
Does this mean that the Review is open to legal challenge if it does not behave in a correct administrative manner?
Dodgy Geezer,
Parliamentary or absolute privilege is an immunity against liability for statements made relating to ones duties.
If what I say or write is covered by Parliamentary privilege I cannot be sued for libel or slander. If however, the oral or written submissions to the commission are not covered by such privilege, then any allegations contained in them would have to be carefully worded to avoid the possibility of libel or slander actions. Particularly in view of current UK laws.
It's very probable, but not certain, that submissions to Muir attract qualified privilege - that is, they are actionable only if made maliciously and without a belief that they are true. But, as they say in the Mafia, "Why take a chance?"
To my pleasant surprise, the movie "Contact" popped into my head today out of the blue . The movie inspires me. I re-watch it periodically to remind me why I pursue scientific study and how our greatest gift is our humanity. Amusingly, I suddenly realized that professional misconduct perpetrated by a highly placed scientist figures prominently in the outcome of the story and that the movie closes with politicians hijacking the spotlight for their personal gain. Who would have guessed!
I notice "Jack of Kent" (a lawyer) has disclaimers on his blog.
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/