The main issues were the meaning of the word ‘objectives’ under s.58 of the Climate Change Act 2008 (‘CCA’); the scope of the UK’s human rights’ obligations following the recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’) in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweis v Switzerland (‘VKS’); and whether, in the context of an alleged failure to comply with the public sector equality duty (‘PSED’), relief should be granted where a subsequent EqIA cured any alleged deficiencies. 

The judge dismissed the claim on all grounds:

The Secretary of State did not misunderstand the obligation under s. 58 of the CCA. The word ‘objective’ is capable of encompassing a wide range of specificities: it does not require an objective to be ‘SMART’. Because this interpretation of s.58 falls within the UK’s margin of appreciation under Article 2 and Article 8 ECHR, there was no need to consider whether another meaning was possible for the purposes of s.3 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

The Secretary of State took into account “delivery risk” (in the sense of uncertainty in relation to whether particular proposals and policies would achieve what they set out to achieve) at various stages. 

Whilst the original approach to assessing the equalities implications of NAP3 did not comply with the PSED, there was no basis on which to doubt that the EqIA following the issuing of the claim was carried out in good faith, nor was there any basis for concluding that it was deficient in any material respect. Quashing the decision would therefore serve no useful purpose.

Whether or not the Second and Third Defendants (being individuals specifically affected by climate change) were victims for the purposes of the ECHR,  the decision taken in relation to NAP3 fell within the scope of the margin of appreciation in relation to adaptation measures. The domestic legislative framework for climate change mitigation and adaptation does not suffer from the regulatory lacunae identified by the ECtHR in relation to Switzerland in VKS. Nor was there any breach by the UK of the procedural obligations identified in VKS.

The judgment can be viewed here.

Mark Westmoreland Smith KC, Charles Streeten and Stephanie Bruce-Smith acted for the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.