the toxic truth - Greenpeace

the toxic truth
the scope of Greenpeace’s purpose as an
organization. 707 On this basis, the court found
that Greenpeace had an “insufficiently direct
interest” to request a prosecution for some of
these illegal acts and, therefore, lacked legal
standing on these issues. 708
The court also stated that, in its view, it would
not be feasible or expedient to investigate
alleged acts in Côte d’Ivoire. 709 The court cited
potential difficulties in gathering evidence
outside of the territory and in obtaining
information and cooperation from the Ivorian
authorities, and referred to past difficulties
that the Dutch authorities had experienced
in seeking cooperation and legal assistance
from Ivorian authorities. The court also
cited the fact that many of the accused had
already been prosecuted in the Netherlands,
that there had been a prosecution in Côte
d’Ivoire, and that a settlement had been paid,
as reasons supporting the decision of the
prosecutor not to prosecute. 710
The view that it would not be expedient or
feasible to undertake an investigation into
the events in Côte d’Ivoire is problematic and
can be challenged both on practical and legal
grounds. In reality, much of the evidence as to
what happened in Côte d’Ivoire is in the public
domain, as the investigation by Amnesty
International and Greenpeace for this report
demonstrates. As described in the previous
chapter, the Ivorian authorities commissioned
and published the findings of both a national
and an international enquiry. Moreover, as
Greenpeace had argued during the hearings, if
there was sufficient evidence to find Trafigura
guilty of illegally exporting waste, there should
be sufficient evidence to investigate them
for events subsequent to the illegal export to
Côte d’Ivoire.
Despite the Dutch court’s reference to the
legal action in Côte d’Ivoire, no prosecution
against the corporate entities of the Trafigura
Group had ever been carried forward. All
charges against individual representatives of
the corporate group had been dropped after
Trafigura reached a financial settlement with
the government of Côte d’Ivoire, under which
all Trafigura parties were granted immunity
from prosecution.
Seeking justice in the
United Kingdom
As discussed in Chapter 3, UK-based Trafigura
Ltd was directly involved in key decisions
relating to caustic washing, the delivery of
the waste to Amsterdam and the subsequent
delivery of the waste in Côte d’Ivoire. The
involvement of the UK company raises
questions about whether illegal actions
were carried out within the UK’s jurisdiction.
Although there has been a call in parliament
for investigation into the issues, no such
investigation has been opened. Amnesty
International and Greenpeace consulted a
lawyer whose view is that there is sufficient
evidence in the public domain to investigate
whether Trafigura Ltd was complicit in or
facilitated the transfer of hazardous waste. 711
The civil claim in UK
Although no criminal investigation has been
undertaken in the UK, in November 2006
a civil claim was filed in the High Court of
England and Wales against Trafigura Limited
and Trafigura Beheer BV (the Trafigura
Defendants) for damages relating to personal
injury and economic loss. 712 The claim was
brought by some 30,000 Ivorians who sought
damages for personal injuries that they
alleged had been caused by exposure to the
toxic waste. The UK law firm Leigh Day & Co
undertook to represent the claimants on a
“no win no fee” basis, which meant that the
victims would not be required to pay legal
costs if their case was unsuccessful in court.
Under the arrangement the law firm also took
on the full costs of evidence gathering and
securing expert witnesses.
161
Chapter 13