Receiving a letter threatening libel from Carter-Ruck is fairly certain to send shivers down your spine.

They are said to have sent such a letter to the Soil Association, the organic farmers’ group, after it objected to a planning application from its client to build an intensive pig farm.  Carter-Ruck is reported to have written to them saying that their objection is defamatory and should be withdrawn.

According to The Guardian, the Soil Association is standing its ground:

“It had a chilling effect,” said Lord Melchett, the Soil Association’s policy director. “Your first thought is, these are incredibly rich and powerful people; we have no assets, we will have to back down, not because we think we are wrong but because we don’t have the resources. It’s taken a lot of time to feel we can risk standing up to them.”

Marked “private and confidential, not for publication or broadcast”, the letter said that the Soil Association’s objections should not be further disseminated and that to do so “would risk incurring considerable liability”. A Carter-Ruck solicitor, Magnus Boyd, told the association that it should instead withdraw its objection from the planning process and meet the company.

Our democratic process allows for all views to be considered and for a planning inquiry inspector, if required, to determine which facts are of value and need expert independent advice.

I was involved with the Soil Association a couple of years ago when I worked with plant research scientists who were planning a debate with school pupils on providing food for the world’s future population. I suggested inviting a spokesman from the  Soil Association to explain their view, which was in stark contrast to the scientists’ belief in supporting GM produce. I felt it was vital that both sides had a view which should be told as today’s young people will be tomorrow’s decision makers, and we should take a pragmatic approach and show respect to opposing opinions.

It was hugely successful and both sides praised each other afterwards, agreeing they had learnt much about their differing methods and beliefs from this debate.

I wonder if this is the approach that Carter-Ruck (or the client) should have taken, a more conciliatory and informative stance, rather than a heavy handed approach.