Nature and the Law working together can change everything.
The paradox of agriculture is that we really can have our cake and eat it.
On 1 September 2022, I resumed my practising certificate as a member of the Bar of England & Wales.
I am specialising in law relating to food, land and agriculture.
I believe that by farming in harmony with nature, we can:
provide Britain with a secure supply of healthy, varied and home-grown food;
secure a diverse and flourishing natural environment with clean waterways and shores; and,
become climate-positive as a country — drawing down more carbon from the atmosphere into British soils and plants each year than we emit.
The law exists to protect people and nature from activities that are unsafe and unsustainable, that endanger people’s lives, rights and environment.
Everyone benefits from good laws, impartially and fairly applied.
I will endeavour to pursue this as a member of the Bar of England & Wales and of Gray’s Inn.
Can the law help us to conserve our habitat?
The Paradox Test in Climate Litigation
The common law and natural law traditions have both sought authority in ‘reason’ and the ‘laws of nature’. Pollock applied this logic in explaining judicial development of negligence: the application of reason to emerging science and technology. The equivalent today is a growing body of scientific evidence that humans are destroying their own habitat through climate change, biodiversity destruction and pollution. Humanity depends on its habitat for survival and therefore each step in this direction increases the risk of its extinction. The courts are already being asked to declare as unlawful governmental decisions that breach human rights and statutory or constitutional protection of the environment. This perspective article proposes that when presented with scientific evidence of habitat destruction in judicial review cases, the courts could examine whether a decision is unlawful and/or irrational. This ‘Paradox Test’ would ask: (1) will the decision contribute to the destruction of the human habitat and (2) if so, is it justified on the ground of necessity? It is proposed that a decision that failed such a test would be unlawful and irrational as contrary to what is arguably the most fundamental law of nature: species survival. The essay defines the Paradox Test, sets it in an historical context and positions it as implicitly inside the boundaries of current English doctrine of judicial review, where it would need to be judicially recognized. Consequently, practitioners are invited to apply the test in court and to share their experience.
Read the article in Oxford Open Climate Change, Volume 3, Issue 1, 2023.
A ‘crisis of time’: a perspective on law and nature from the English Civil War era
Both law and science went through revolutionary changes in England in the first half of the seventeenth century, a period of pandemic, conflict, and climate change. The circle of Samuel Hartlib (c. 1600–62) sought a way to regenerate society through reform and innovation. One member of the circle was Sir Cheney Culpeper (1601–66), a barrister and landowner, whose correspondence shows an attempt to synthesize law and natural philosophy into a coherent vision of regeneration. He wrestled as much with how change could be achieved as with what changes would be beneficial. He sought a mutually beneficial relationship between humanity and nature. He urged self-restraint to avoid the abuse of power, political and technological. His most practical and influential work was in agriculture. Paradoxically, however, the efforts of Culpeper and his circle to address the crises of their times have arguably created the very crises of ours. We are, moreover, in what Culpeper describes as a ‘crisis of time’. This essay poses the question as to whether, given the urgency of our situation, we might learn from Culpeper’s generation that regeneration requires revolution as well as reform.
Read the article in The Journal of European Ideas, 12 October 2023.
Please send feedback or ideas to: Jurisprudence[at]paradox.law