Downs v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 14, 2008, [2008] EWHC 2666 (Admin)

Case Number: CO/4483/2004

Linked as:

Extract

Downs v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, November 14, 2008, [2008] EWHC 2666 (Admin)

Neutral Citation Number: [2008] EWHC 2666 (Admin)

Case No: CO/4483/2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 14 November 2008

Before :

Mr Justice COLLINS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

| |Georgina Downs |Claimant |

| |- and - | |

| |Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs |Defendant |

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Michael Fordham, Q.C. & Ms Emma Dixon (instructed by Foresters for the Claimant

Mr Robert Jay, Q.C. & Mr Vikram Sachdeva (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendant

Hearing dates: 15 – 18 July 2008

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Judgment

Mr Justice COLLINS :

1. The claimant, Ms Georgina Downs, has for a number of years been a campaigner who has sought to persuade the public authorities concerned and in particular the defendant and his predecessors to take the public health and environmental concerns raised by crop-spraying seriously. She has developed a very considerable expertise in and knowledge of pesticides and their application by means of crop-spraying and is listened to with respect by those who are responsible for giving relevant advice to the defendant. She has been nominated for and has won awards for her campaigning activities. She has been accustomed to presenting her arguments, which involve detailed scientific considerations and reference to facts and figures, often complicated, to support them. Thus she has produced in this claim three very detailed statements which set out the factual basis for the arguments presented on her behalf and which seek to meet the contrary arguments put forward on behalf of the defendant. She also asked and was permitted to read a statement at the outset of the hearing summarising her personal concerns and the basis of her claim. She can rest assured, as I have no doubt she realised as she listened to the arguments at the hearing, that those representing her put forward all the arguments in a most competent and persuasive fashion. Mr Fordham, Q.C., demonstrated full knowledge and understanding of the complex issues involved. Having said that, I should also record that Mr Jay, Q.C., on behalf of the defendant, displayed a similar understanding of the details of his case. I am indebted to both counsel for their assistance.

2. Ms Downs’ activities stem from her exposure to crop spraying as a person living next to fields which have been regularly sprayed for a number of years. She moved with her parents to her present address in May 1983 and since 1984 the adjoining fields have been used for arable crops and have been sprayed with pesticides. The garden of the claimant’s house is immediately bordering the adjacent field with no protection from the spray which, since the field has always been sprayed to its edge, has inevitably drifted over the garden and entered the house via windows or doors if open, or through air vents. She was only 11 years old when first exposed to pesticide spraying and was frequently in the garden when it occurred. She began to suffer from ill-health, in particular flu like symptoms, sore throats, blistering in the mouth and throat and other problems. Neither she nor her parents nor her doctors realised for a time that it was possible that the exposure to pesticides could have caused her problems. In the early 1990s following deterioration of her health and an admission to hospital she began to seek information since she thought the crop spraying could account for her health problems. She discovered that the spray contained a number of chemicals which were designed to kill living organisms, whether animal (particularly insects) or vegetable (including fungi). The safety data sheets for pesticides contain warnings of the hazards to humans, some more serious than others. But warnings such as ‘toxic by inhalation’, ‘do not breathe spray’, ‘toxic in contact with skin’, ‘risk of damage to eyes’ are regularly found.

3. This led to the family closing windows when spraying was taking place and for some days after since the chemicals were noticeable after spraying. Attempts to obtain advance notice that spraying was to take place were not generally successful. Following an occasion in 1998 when he was exposed to spray which affected his eyes, the claimant’s father took to wearing protective clothing and goggles if going outside when spraying was taking place. The adverse effect on her and her father’s quality of life is all too obvious. And, in addition to the drifting spray, at harvest time ...

See the full content of this document