Legal

Two more activists plead not guilty after Horse Hill protest

Guildford Magistrates Court

Two climate activists who took part in a protest at the Horse Hill oil site in Surrey last month have pleaded not guilty to obstruction.

Mags Mulowska and Venetia Carter made their plea during an appearance at Guildford Magistrates court (29 July 2020).

Their trials will take place at the same time of those for Simon Sinclair and Christopher Smith, who had previously denied trespass at the site. DrillOrDrop report

Extinction Rebellion said the protest involving all four activists, on 1 June 2020, was against government policy on fossil fuel production.

All the cases have been adjourned until 10 September 2020 for a case management hearing. A date for the trial will then be set.

Bail conditions have been changed for all four so that they can visit a monitoring post for the Horse Hill site.

8 replies »

  1. They could have used the monitoring post for what Martin ? It’s called freedom of choice and the two things are totally different, it’s like saying they shopped at Tesco but could have used Sainsbury’s. [Edited by moderator]

    • Drill or drop & Jono take note

      Why do you believe it is wrong for UKOG to be doing what it is doing when it is following the governments policy.

      It’s shareholders have invested in the company to buy & develop the licences that the government has sold the licences in good faith, where government policy encourages companies & private investors to support the UK government & it’s economy & the environment to a net zero target by 2050.

      If the government changes it’s policy on existing contracts it has effectively missold the licences.

      Imo. The best that can be hoped for in the UK from your or Drill or drop perspective is the sensation of future licences sales by the UK government .

      Maybe all should support the current UK economy with the commitments on licence sales already made & there future developments & lobby the government not to sell me future licences.

      • The issuing of a PEDL confers the right to search for, bore for and get hydrocarbons. That’s all. It does not confer any exemption from other legal/regulatory requirements such as any need to gain access rights from landowners,health and safety regulations,planning permission from relevant local authorities.

        If investors are not wise enough to see that the licence has limitations then that is their own faults for not thinking it through. It’s fairly obvious that there will be opposition to any onshore oil and gas developments.

        I doubt there will be much appetite for any future licensing rounds based on how much money has been lost by companies and their investors in recent years.

        • John Powney

          You will find me straight forward, honest & to the point in my reply, if you like it or not is irrelevant to me!

          I agreed with your points:

          The issuing of a PEDL confers the right to search for, bore for and get hydrocarbons. That’s all. It does not confer any exemption from other legal/regulatory requirements such as any need to gain access rights from landowners,health and safety regulations,planning permission from relevant local authorities.

          The reality is that UKOG has a site it will gain a environmental permit, comply on health & safety & conditions applied by the relevant planning authority as it has previously.

          Dispite all the noise of the many objections maybe you should take the time to review the statutory consultee comments that find no real reasons for objections of this application.

          They may not like it & request certain conditions within there remit but I do not see there being a justifiable reason for rejection.

          While I understand local feeling, should local councillors take a view similar to Surrey councils planning committee which was contrary to there planning officer & legal advice that they were given.

          Well we can see that Surrey council are still investigating the committee, due to there conduct & the planning officers & legal advice are probably hoping that this will not go to appeal as they don’t believe it is able to be won in line with national policy. As when it is investigated by the planning inspectorate & the costs to the council & it’s taxpayers will be unacceptable.

          The last similar appeal for Wressle cost the local authority over £500, 000 from it budgets which I am sure all local taxpayers would believe would be better spent on local services & the roads which seem to be a major problem on the IOW according to ‘ Island Roads’ as well as the 6% of production revenue royalty that UKOG will pay to the local community if successful.

  2. Yes, the two things are totally different. One is legal the other not. Which out of the two supermarkets is illegal?? DOH.

    So, your “it’s’ like” is the useless comment, because it simply isn’t. Are you indicating there is no difference between legal and illegal? Must be the resident anarchist.

    Prone to shooting yourself in the foot, aren’t you!

Add a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.