The other climate breakdown related cases at the ICC, which appear to have been accepted, start by explaining why the ICC has jurisdiction. In April 2024 an updated CGAN case was submitted to the ICC which, this time, begins by explaining why the ICC has jurisdiction. The April 2024 case is significantly stronger because it has been tested against legal department of the Met and proven to be robust.
Please note that the new CGAN case is redacted to remove the names of the accused government ministers and certain addresses.
The case is substantial. It runs to 121 pages and includes the dossier of evidence submitted to the Met Police in September 2022, the correspondence with the legal department of the Met and the correspondence with MOPAC. This updated case proves that the Met is acting unlawfully by refusing to use ICCA 2001 in the context of mass killing, annihilation and mass suffering caused by the policies that drive climate breakdown. The updated case explains the key concepts, such as the ‘direct intent’ and ‘oblique intent’ provisions in Article 30 of the Rome Statute and the ‘common purpose’ provisions in Article 25. The case also includes the correspondence with MOPAC, which shows that body again refuses to adhere to its code of governance. It accepts what it is told by the Met Police and refuses to undertake its role to independently and critically examine the evidence. MOPAC usually undertakes an oversight function but, in this case, it refuses to perform its stated role of ‘effective scrutiny’.
