TellShell.net: The best of Royal Dutch Shell Plc .com :: ShellNews.net: SHELL, MR JUSTICE LADDIE AND "JUSTICE"

I note that one of the aims of your department is to “empower citizens to obtain justice, safeguard their rights and participate in a transparent and accountable democratic process”.

Presumably you agree that a fair and just civil trial requires the following fundamentally essential ingredients:-

1. No intimidation of witnesses.

2. Compliance with the discovery process and no compromise of documentary evidence.

3. Ideally, an equal weight of arms in terms of legal representation.

4. Last but not least, an independent impartial Judge.

I would like you to consider whether the experience that my son and I had with the UK civil justice/litigation system could be viewed as meeting the above basic requirements.

THE BACKGROUND

From 1994 my son and I sued Shell repeatedly in the High Court for alleged breach of confidence and/or breach of contract. Shell settled our first three claims out of court. However senior management of the Royal Dutch Shell Group decided to bring every gun to bear on us when we brought a fourth claim (in respect of a “Smart” Loyalty card scheme) which eventually came to trial before Mr Justice Laddie in June 1999.

It is probably fair to say that Shell had never come up against such determined, persistent and creative adversaries. We mounted a multifaceted campaign against Shell which for example included founding a Shell Corporate Conscience Pressure Group which over 200 Shell UK Retailers joined. We organised picketing of Shell HQ buildings and Shell’s AGM by Shell retailers and Shell shareholders. All of our activity was entirely legal. At Shell’s request, the membership list of the pressure group was investigated and substantiated by the Advertising Standards Authority.

The overall situation became so heated that Shell displayed posters at the Shell Centre making defamatory comments about my son and me. We promptly sued Shell for Libel. We subsequently withdrew the libel action after receiving a substantial consideration (worth £125,000) from Shell: unknown to Shell shareholders Shell entered into a secret agreement to fund our litigation against them in respect of two other High Court Actions. The bouts of acrimony/litigation went on for several years. It is against this background that Shell adopted a “no holds barred” approach which included the use of undercover investigators.

INTIMIDATION OF WITNESSES & COMPROMISE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

During the run-up to the “Smart” trial, our key witnesses, my sons solicitor, and my family, were besieged by undercover investigators. The cast of sinister characters included Mr Daniel Wilson who falsely claimed to be a Daily Express reporter; an American, Mr ***** ***** from Paris, who travelled over to the UK to interview our key witnesses under the false pretences of being a reporter for The European newspaper (subsequently identified by The Guardian as being a “Spook”); a Mr Christopher Phillips, a supposed “director” of a non-existent company called “Cofton Consultants”; and an anonymous telephone caller who made threats against our witnesses and my family after establishing his credibility as a Shell “insider”. His credibility increased still further when actions he said were being taken against us by Shell subsequently proved to be 100% accurate in every particular.

By co-incidence or otherwise, a series of burglaries were carried out at the residences of a key witness, at my sons solicitor’s home and at my sons house. Key documents privileged and otherwise were examined. Thus the integrity of crucial documents was compromised. Someone found and had obviously examined (and no doubt copied) a privileged document which Shell had unsuccessfully attempted to obtain via an application to the courts. Kendall Freeman had stated that they would in any event obtain the document. After the relevant burglary Kendall Freeman made no further application to the court for that document.

A former Shell Manager of long-standing and high repute, Mr Paul King, was a potential key witness. Shell was aware from the discovery documents that he had made derogatory comments about Shell in a handwritten letter he sent to my son (on Shell letter heading) prior to his resignation from the company. Mr King resigned because he was thoroughly ashamed and disheartened by the unethical conduct of the Shell manager at the heart of all our claims against Shell. An agency appointed by Mr King had also made a formal complaint against the same Shell Manager, Mr Andrew Lazenby.

Shell tried to entice Mr King back on side by offering him a job in the Shell Gas Division. He declined the unexpected offer. After becoming aware of the undercover activity and subsequently being approached by Shell lawyers, Mr King became too frightened to give evidence on our behalf. He expressed concern on more than one occasion about his pension. Mr King eventually said that he could not recall anything relating to our case – not even the name of Mr Lazenby who he worked with closely during his last years at Shell.

The undercover activity had a similar devastating impact on other key witnesses.

Our most important witness, Mr Roger Sotherton, was shocked when he discovered prior to the trial that he had been a victim of an interview by one of the undercover agents, Mr ***** *****. Mr Sothertons Norfolk residence was burglarised in the run up to the trial and his documents examined. He was so shaken and frightened by these events that he and his wife decided to put their home up for sale because they no longer felt safe at that address. It was therefore no surprise that Mr Sotherton was incoherent and obliging to Shell’s QC when giving evidence in Court at a time when the disposal of the burglarised property was being completed. When Mr Sotherton did mention the burglary in relation to a question about allegedly forged documents, Shell’s QC immediately dropped the line of questioning like a hot potato. He obviously had no wish to focus attention on such activity.

Another key witness, Mr John Chambers, backtracked on important evidence he had planned to give after he became aware that he had also been the victim of an interview by the undercover agent, Mr ***** *****. Mr Chambers gave evidence in court but omitted the most vital aspect relating to the circumstances of Mr Kings departure from Shell.

Thus the evidence of all of our key witnesses was undermined and/or neutralised by the undercover investigators. In a systematic fashion every one of our witnesses was intimidated. That is surely fundamentally wrong. The same tactics were used against us.

Senior Shell management – including most of the individuals named in recent US class action law suits against Shell relating to the alleged multibillion dollar oil reserves fraud, ignored all protestations about the clandestine activity.

Only after “Christopher Phillips”, was caught illegally examining private mail at our offices did we corner Shell Legal Director Richard Wiseman, and Shell’s solicitors, Kendall Freeman, into confessing that investigative activity had been undertaken on behalf of Shell. On 19 June 1998, Kendall Freeman admitted in a letter to my son that they had instructed Mr Phillips in the course of “routine credit enquiries”. In a letter dated 24 June 1998 to my sons solicitors Kendall Freeman said that the investigation carried out by Mr Phillips was in regard to the financial status of companies with which my son has been associated. They went on to say that such enquiries are perfectly legitimate as long as they are conducted properly.

Shell U.K. Legal Director Richard Wiseman stated in a letter to my son dated 9 July 1998: “The activities of Mr Phillips have, of course, been admitted”. In the same letter, Mr Wiseman deemed it appropriate to give an assurance regarding the physical well-being of my family and our witnesses.

Kendall Freeman in an obvious effort to intimidate, made it clear in correspondence that in fact a number of agents had been hired on our case – not just Mr Phillips.

Although Shell and Kendall Freeman denied any involvement with the threats and burglaries, they refused to reveal to my sons’ solicitors the brief given to the various investigators or the scope of their activities. The excuse of “routine credit enquiries” was of course absolute nonsense. Routine credit enquires can be made instantaneously using modern technology. Mr Phillips engaged in illegal activity including using a fake business card and a fake company. Why would anyone need to go “undercover” to make routine credit enquiries? Why did Shell refuse to divulge the brief given to its undercover agents bearing in mind the serious criminal nature of the events which were unfolding?

When the Police carried out an investigation at Shell UK’s London HQ in relation to the espionage activity, Shell apparently did not disclose its ties with Hakluyt, an organisation well versed in the same tactics which had been directed against us. Directors/shareholders in Shell Transport were simultaneously directors/shareholders in Hakluyt; a shadowy organisation staffed by former senior MI6 Officers which, as you probably know, many MP’s believe is a commercial offshoot of the UK Secret Intelligence Service.

In addition to the covert operations against my family and our campaign, Shell also targeted various other NGO’s including Greenpeace and Body Shop. Shell admitted hiring Hakluyt undercover agents for this activity (Sunday Times front page story dated 17 June 2001). Shell also allegedly set up and paid for a private army of 1400 Police spies supporting the then murderous regime in Nigeria (Mail on Sunday; 4 April 04: “Shell Chief had a private army”). It seems that multinational corporations use undercover agents supplied by firms such as Hakluyt because it makes them once removed from direct responsibility for any unpleasant/illegal actions which might subsequently be exposed. In other words, scope for plausible denial with blame being ideally attached to the intelligence firm, rather than the sponsoring client company/Country. This may explain the use of so-called “private contractors” in the interrogation of American held prisoners in Iraq. One such private intelligence firm involved, Titan Corporation, is the American equivalent to Hakluyt.

I believe that it was entirely inappropriate for Shell to use ruthless intimidatory undercover tactics in the course of legitimate UK civil litigation involving a small company and its two directors, my son and I. Kendall Freeman made it plain in correspondence that the fact that I am a partly disabled war pensioner in my eighties is immaterial. Indeed my sons’ solicitor accurately described the conduct of Shell/Kendall Freeman in bringing a £100,000 Counterclaim against a then 81 year old war pensioner (me) as being “petty and vindictive”. Kendall Freeman is in my experience an unprincipled firm useful to a ruthless company like Shell, or a hard nosed businessman such as the Harrods owner, Mr Al Fayed. They have a track record of being associated with dubious activities by sleazy individuals’ e.g. freelance agents checking the contents of dustbins in the hope of collecting intelligence/evidence useful to clients of Kendall Freeman (the Hamilton/Al Fayed libel case).

EQUAL WEIGHT OF ARMS

Shell followed a deliberate policy of draining the finances of a financially weaker opponent. This was entirely in line with a threat made in writing by a Shell solicitor, Nigel Rowley, to make our earlier litigation against Shell “drawn out and difficult”.

My son and I applied for and were granted legal aid. However it was withdrawn after the legal aid board received a letter from Shell making a completely unfounded allegation. My sons solicitor knew for absolutely certain that the allegation was untrue and an attempt was made to put the matter to Judicial Review so that the solicitor could give evidence. Unfortunately because Shell had timed its intervention to perfection the Smart trial commenced before the Judicial Review could take place. Hence we were both put at a further tremendous disadvantage when Shell already had a host of lawyers at its disposal.

LEGAL REPRESENTATION IN COURT

Shell had a leading specialist QC, Mr Geoffrey Hobbs supported by a specialist junior, plus the then Senior Partner of Kendall Freeman, Mr Colin Joseph, and a small army of flunkies. Our company was represented in court by a teenage dropout, Mr Nicholas St John Gill, who had no legal background or experience whatsoever. He never spoke a word in the entire trial except to confirm his name. My son was represented by a junior barrister, Mr Geoffrey Cox, who had no experience in the relevant field of law. Because of the sudden withdrawal of legal aid I HAD NO LEGAL REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER despite the fact that Shell had brought the malicious £100,000 Counterclaim against me. Thus we were faced when almost naked of arms by the unbridled might of a multinational goliath which had used every underhand trick in its arsenal to prevent us having a fair trial.

I have become increasingly embittered about the withdrawal of my legal aid after reading reports of cases where legal aid has been granted. For example, the case of Brendan Fearon, a career criminal with more than 30 convictions for burglary, violence and other offences, who was granted legal aid to sue farmer Tony Martin, whose secluded house was burglarised by Fearon and his gang. More recently, there is the equally astounding case of the hook-handed ranting Muslim Abu Hamza and his £250.000 in legal bills; a fanatic, who backs terrorists, incites racial hatred and applauds acts of mass murder. Yet legal aid was withdrawn on baseless grounds for an 81 year old war pensioner who served in the British regular army for 12 years and subsequently as a UK Civil Servant.

AN INDEPENDENT IMPARTIAL JUDGE

The trial Judge was Mr Justice Laddie (Sir Hugh Laddie QC). During the course of the trial Mr Hobbs sprung an ambush in court and apparently with the approval of Mr Justice Laddie used outright deception in an attempt to entrap my son during his cross-examination.

Mr Hobbs said that a motorbike messenger was on his way from J Sainsburys, the supermarket group, with evidence, which by implication, would prove that my son had forged documents. In reality there was no such messenger and no such evidence. The charges were completely without foundation. The case was settled mid-trial.

On 12 November 2002 I wrote to Mr Peter Smith, the Clerk to Mr Justice Laddie seeking confirmation that Mr Justice Laddie had not personally known at the time of the trial a Mr Tom Moody-Stuart.

Mr Moody-Stuart is an intellectual property law barrister at 8 New Square. He is the son of Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, who at the time of the trial was Group Chairman of the Royal Dutch Shell Group. I pointed out the close connection which Mr Justice Laddie has with the same chambers. I also reminded Mr Justice Laddie that at an early stage in the trial I had supplied him with a letter received from Lady Judy Moody-Stuart (the mother of Tom Moody-Stuart). The dispute with Shell had grown so bitter and intense that Lady Judy Moody-Stuart had entered the fray on behalf of her husband, Sir Mark. Mr Justice Laddie declined to enter into any correspondence with me.