Freemanreply 5
Home Up freemanreply 6 Freeman's letter Shell's lawyers




Marcus Rutherford

D J Freeman

43 Fetter Lane

London EC4A 1JU.

12 September 2000 

Your ref   MWR/PAS/011311999 

Dear Mr Rutherford, 

Thank you for your letter of the 11 September.  First, please accept my apologies, as my letter of the 7 September appears to be a copy of my ‘opening’ draft.  I will not trouble you with the amended copy, though one, excluded, point is worthy of note.   

It concerns your client’s claims that I have only offered to supply my evidence ‘on terms’.  For the benefit of the record/truth, in a further effort to ensure that I have exhausted every possible means of enabling Shell, to explore the possibility of it behaving responsibly to the victims of its 1968 nuclear dumping, I offered, on more than one occasion, to/through Richard Wiseman (Shell’s legal head) ‘off the record’ talks i.e. talks/evidence with absolutely no conditions attached!  I trust we shall now hear no more of your clients ‘claims’ regarding my unacceptable evidence ‘terms’. 

You will recall that in my letter of the 7 September I wrote: 

‘Does your client dispute any of the nuclear research programmes, as set out in paragraphs 51-79, were carried out by Shell?  Please answer.’ 

Despite this request you have, once again, declined to supply answers.  However, if Shell stands by its declarations as per its 7 February 1994, Narrative:  

‘(a) Shell Thornton was not involved in "atomic research" (page 1).’

‘(b) Thornton did not house a "nuclear facility"….  Thornton did not and never has housed a pile or reactor.  (page 2).’

‘(c) We do not understand what you mean by "atomic research for military purposes".  We have already explained that Thornton was not involved in any atomic research (page 2).’ 

Then Shell will want, no need to confirm that it disputes it carried out the secret military nuclear research programmes, that it ‘housed’ a nuclear reactor/testing cell- as set out in paragraphs 51-79 of my draft claim.  I believe that in view of the consequences for countless thousands and incidentally Shell, you will see that a ‘We note the contents’ reply will be deemed most unsuitable and irresponsible.  Furthermore, in the absence of Shell’s specific rejection that it had a nuclear reactor/testing cell and it carried out the military, and other, nuclear research programmes-as set out in paragraphs 51-79 (for self-evidently any organisation that did not would offer immediate rejection), that your client accepts the facts as stated in paragraphs 51-79 of my draft Statement of Claim. 

Yours sincerely,

John Dyer