-------------------=========================-------------------
                   G  R  E  N  P  E  A  C  E

                   P r e s s   R e l e a s e
                                    14.10.94
-------------------=========================-------------------

Judges split over decision to uphold Clayoquot injunction

Greenpeace to take case to the Supreme Court of Canada

Vancouver, B.C., 30 September, 1994 (GP) Today, despite a strong dissenting opinion expressed by one of three judges, the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled that the court injunction held by MacMillan Bloedel in Clayoquot Sound remains valid. Greenpeace Canada, which was represented by Sierra Legal Defense Fund, announced that it will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The injunction prevented the public at large from obstructing logging operations on publicly-held land in Clayoquot Sound. As a result of this injunction, more than 1,000 citizens have been charged with criminal contempt, and fined or sent to jail.

In the dissenting opinion, Judge Wood charged that the injunction "must be set aside. What is at issue here is a principle fundamental to our notion of justice" ... "it is incompatible with the fundamental premise underlying almost 900 years of (the court's) historical development".

Judge Wood criticised the office of the Attorney General for failing to adequately fulfil its responsibilities in dealing with the Clayoquot protests. Wood stated that these proceedings should always have been "the responsibility of the Attorney General as guardian of the public interest... In recent years the courts have been drawn into a role they were never intended to perform and for which they are ill-suited."

The injunction was granted to the logging giant MacMillan Bloedel in 1991, with the explicit understanding that the company would proceed with civil suits against those who violated the injunction: however, not one civil case has ever been initiated. Judge Wood criticised MacMillan Bloedel for this misuse of the courts and pointed out that "one can not help being struck by the obvious... there was obviously no intention (by MB) to proceed to trial".

"MacMillan Bloedel has been able to use the courts of B.C. to promote corporate gain and suppress public dissent in defence of public forests," said Tamara Stark of Greenpeace Canada. "No other jurisdiction in Canada has allowed private companies to misuse the courts in this manner (1)."

Campaigner Chris Hatch added that "Greenpeace is committed to taking this to the Supreme Court of Canada. The right of the public to protest clearcutting and forest destruction must be defended," he said.

For more information contact:

Tamara Stark or Chris Hatch, Greenpeace Vancouver (604) 253-7701
Greg McDade, Sierra Legal Defense Fund            (604) 685-5618

Notes to editors

(1) Similar broad court injunctions have been refused by courts in England, Australia, the United States and in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Ontario.

Joey, 20 Okt 1994