"From a strategic planning perspective, this is the wrong site; from the perspective of Government policy which seeks to foster balanced regional development, this is the wrong site; from the perspective of minimising environmental impact, this is the wrong site; and consequently, from the perspective of sustainable development, this is the wrong site"
After an apparent flurry of activity by Minister Dempsey, through an IFA go-between, Dempsey conceded yet a further review of the Shell project, by way of encouraging the Rossport 5 to 'purge their contempt', and be released. The previous two reviews commissioned by the minister, it turned out, were both done by firms associated with Shell and therefore not independent.The Review that Minsiter Dempsey was offering in no way met therequirements of the Rossport 5. It was not, they say, going to look at the danger of rupture and explosion, nor were they to be allowed to input to the review, and it was to be done by Patroleum Affairs Division within the Minster's own department, and therefore was totally compromised before it started, through this division's involvement in the department as advocates for Shell.All this came about before the court appreance om Thursday morning before President of the High Court, Justice Finnegan.In Court, Shell proposed to change the terms of the injunction, first issued on April 4th, to make explicit the fact that the Minsiter had not given consent to the work of installation of the pipeline. Shell shuffled around the issue of whther the original injunction had been illegal.Justice Finnegan simply invited the prisoners to 'purge their contempt' given this new wording offered by Shell. In view of the fact that the origianal injunction was therefore illegall itself, the prisoners could not agree to purge contempt of an injunction given illegally.However when the prisoners looked to bring a motion for an injunction to be considered against Shell to restrai Shell from undertaking any works of installation on the pipeline, without the Minsiter's consents, as required under the Gas Act of 1946, the judge refused.The Judge, accepted shell's argument that they should not be let to do so, on grounds that those in contempt of court cannot be let to bring motions to the court until they purge their contempt!A photograph which the prisoners wished to introduce which clearly shows that Shell has already begun the installation of the pipeline, despite the fact that this work is illegal because not compliant with Ministerial consents, was refused by the Judge, who determined that the prisoners' motion be struck out altogether as disallowed in view of their beng in contempt, and those in contempt of Court could not bring any such motions to apply for an injunction.