Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- 26013witness_statement_of_simon_gibbon [2026/04/30 16:39] – nefcadmin
+++ 26013witness_statement_of_simon_gibbon [2026/04/30 20:48] (current) – [Statement of Truth] nefcadmin
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 **For: Claimant **
-**Witness: Dr Simon Gibbon \\
+**Witness: Dr Simon Gibbon
-st Witness statement **
+st Witness statement **
-**Exhibit: SG1 \\
+**Exhibit: SG1
-Made: 13 January 2026 **
+Made: 13 January 2026 **
-**IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE **
+**IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE **
-**AC-2026-LON- **
+**AC-2026-LON- **
-**KING’S BENCH DIVISION **
+**KING’S BENCH DIVISION **
-**ADMINISTRATIVE COURT  **
+**ADMINISTRATIVE COURT  **
-**In the matter of an application for permission for judicial review **
+**In the matter of an application for permission for judicial review **
-**BETWEEN: **
+**BETWEEN: **
-**R (DR SIMON GIBBON) **
+**R (DR SIMON GIBBON) **
 **Claimant **
 **-and-**
-**MARINE MANAGEMENT ORGANISATION **
+**MARINE MANAGEMENT ORGANISATION **
 **Defendant **
 **-and-**
-**PD TEESPORT LIMITED **
+**PD TEESPORT LIMITED **
-**Interested Party **
+**Interested Party **
-**WITNESS STATEMENT OF DR SIMON GIBBON **
+**WITNESS STATEMENT OF DR SIMON GIBBON **
-I, **DR SIMON GIBBON, ......, a retired industrial chemist, say as follows:**
+I, **DR SIMON GIBBON, ......, a retired industrial chemist, say as follows:**
-   * 1. I am the Claimant in these proceedings.
+   * 1. I am the Claimant in these proceedings.
-   * 2. I make this witness statement to:
+   * 2. I make this witness statement to:
-      - set out my background and expertise;
+      - set out my background and expertise;
-      - explain my involvement relating to the River Tees and my specific involvement in this licence application. As such, I make this statement on matters of fact (not as an expert witness);
+      - explain my involvement relating to the River Tees and my specific involvement in this licence application. As such, I make this statement on matters of fact (not as an expert witness);
-      - explain the permitted dredging area;
+      - explain the permitted dredging area;
-      - set  out  my  financial  means  in  this  Aarhus  Convention  claim  pursuant  to  CPR 46.25(1)(b) at Exhibit SG1; and
+      - set  out  my  financial  means  in  this  Aarhus  Convention  claim  pursuant  to  CPR 46.25(1)(b) at Exhibit SG1; and
-      - exhibit  the  relevant  documents  in  this  matter,  namely  the  paginated  bundle  of documents relevant to the claim marked ‘Index to Claim Bundle’ which I will refer to  as  **[CB/page  number]  **and  the  exhibit  SG1,  which  I  will  refer  to  as [**SG1/exhibit number**].
+      - exhibit  the  relevant  documents  in  this  matter,  namely  the  paginated  bundle  of documents relevant to the claim marked ‘Index to Claim Bundle’ which I will refer to  as  **[CB/page  number]  **and  the  exhibit  SG1,  which  I  will  refer  to  as [**SG1/exhibit number**].
-   * 3.  The facts and matters set out in this statement are within my own knowledge unless otherwise stated, and I believe them to be true.  Where I refer to information supplied by others, the source of the information is identified; facts and matters derived from other sources are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
+   * 3. The facts and matters set out in this statement are within my own knowledge unless otherwise stated, and I believe them to be true.  Where I refer to information supplied by others, the source of the information is identified; facts and matters derived from other sources are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
-   * 4. This statement has been prepared by me with the assistance of my solicitors through a series of email exchanges and phone calls.
+   * 4. This statement has been prepared by me with the assistance of my solicitors through a series of email exchanges and phone calls.
-   * 5. I confirm that I have read the Statement of Facts and Grounds in this case and agree its contents.
+   * 5. I confirm that I have read the Statement of Facts and Grounds in this case and agree its contents.
-===== Professional expertise and experience =====
+===== Professional expertise and experience =====
-  * 6. I am a retired industrial chemist with over 30 years of experience in colloid science, \\
+  * 6. I am a retired industrial chemist with over 30 years of experience in colloid science, surface  chemistry,  physical  measurement,  and  polymeric  materials.  I  hold qualifications from Imperial College (BSc and PhD) and am a Visiting Professor in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Manchester (retired). My  career  focused  on  the  interaction  between  chemicals  and  particle  surfaces,  the statistical  validity  of  sampling  heterogeneous  materials,  the  modeling  of  complex physical systems, and transport in polymeric materials.
-surface  chemistry,  physical  measurement,  and  polymeric  materials.**  **I  hold \\
+  * 7. I have extensive career experience specializing for over 20 years in colloid science and surface analysis at ICI and latterly in corrosion protection by polymeric materials at AkzoNobel. My background involves the precise characterization of how chemicals are adsorbed onto surfaces and absorbed into particles. This is the fundamental physical mechanism  governing  how  historical  industrial  toxins  (such  as  PCBs)  bind  to  river sediment.  I  was  also  involved  in  the  design  of  rigorous  testing  protocols  for heterogeneous  industrial  materials,  determining  the  statistical  validity  of  sampling regimes specifically, calculating the minimum sample density required to detect 'out-of-spec' anomalies (hotspots) within large-scale production outputs.
-qualifications from Imperial College (BSc and PhD) and am a Visiting Professor in the \\
+  * 8. During  my  career,  I  was  a  lead  specialist  in  designing  measurement  protocols  for complex,  heterogeneous  materials.  This  required  developing  rigorous  statistical frameworks  to  ensure  that  small-scale  samples  accurately  represented  large-scale industrial outputs.
-Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Manchester (retired). \\
+  * 9. I  am  a  former  manager  of  a  physical  measurement  group  specializing  in  particle analysis  (sizing,  surface  area,  and  heterogeneity)  and  the  development  of robotic/automated testing systems for scale-up operations. Dredging is fundamentally a particle transport issue.
-My  career  focused  on  the  interaction  between  chemicals  and  particle  surfaces,  the \\
+  * 10. Since 2022, I have applied my expertise specifically to sediment contamination issues in the River Tees, collaborating with academic researchers to catalogue and scrutinize the environmental risk assessments provided by the Marine Management Organisation (MMO). In the last 3 years, I have conducted independent forensic reviews of a range of  South  Tees  planning  applications  and  collaborated  with  scientists  from  Durham University.
-statistical  validity  of  sampling  heterogeneous  materials,  the  modeling  of  complex \\
+  * 11. I  am  an  active  member  of  the  North  East  Marine  Research  Group  (“NEMRG”),  an informal  coalition  comprising  academics  from  Durham,  Newcastle,  and  Hull Universities, representatives from the North East Fishing Collective, the Fishmongers’ Company’s Fisheries Charitable Trust, and community organizations (including Climate Action  Stokesley  &  Villages  and  Reclaim  Our  Sea).  NEMRG  has  been  active  since approximately 2023.
-physical systems, and transport in polymeric materials. \\
+  * 12. My work with NEMRG involves the examination of technical data to ensure regulatory bodies  are  adequately  addressing  contamination  issues.  In  2023,  I  developed  and continue  to  enhance  a  bespoke  web  application  that  allows  for  the  independent analysis  and  comparison  of  sediment  quality  datasets  provided  in  marine  licence applications.
+  * 13. Between  2022  and  2023,  I  led  a  specialist  working  group  (comprising  two environmental  scientists  and  a  forensic  analyst)  to  conduct  a  detailed  audit  of  the documentation  surrounding  a  widely-publicized  crustacean  die-off.  We  investigated causal  links,  identified  inconsistencies  in  agency  reporting,  and  assessed  risks associated with capital dredging.
+  * 14. As a part of NEMRG, I engaged with the Environment Agency regarding the extensive contamination caused by the South Bank Quay dredge—an event now documented on the Marine Case Management System’s Public Register.
+  * 15. I have presented written and oral evidence and technical critiques to various regulatory and governmental bodies, including the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee (at the inquiry into the crustacean die-off), the Multi-Council Crustacean Die-off Working Group (detailing the risks of Teesworks developments and specifically highlighting the environmental dangers of trailing suction hopper dredgers operating with  overspill),  the  MMO  (technical  representations  objecting  to  marine  licence applications),  and  a  2023  joint  meeting  with  the  MMO,  Environment  Agency,  and Natural  England  (to  formally  articulate  our  ongoing  concerns  regarding  the deteriorating state of the River Tees).
+  * 16. My overarching objective in relation to my activities outlined above is to try to address contamination in the River Tees with a view to improving the state of the river and the wider environment.
-.
+==== Permitted dredging area ====
+   * 17. My application for judicial review relates to the MMO’s decision to grant a ten-year marine  licence  for  the  disposal  of  dredged  material.  I  understand  dredging  by  PD Teesport  Limited  (“**the  IP**”)  as  the  Port  Authority  is  permitted  by  the  Tees  and Hartlepool Port Authority Act 1966. That Act does not, however, authorize the disposal of  dredged  material  at  sea,  which  requires  a  marine  licence.  The  2025  licence (L/2025/00366/1) was granted  by  the  MMO on 5 November  2025  (“**the Licence**”) [**CB/A66-78**].
+   * 18. The Licence permits dredged material taken from areas defined in Schedule 2 and 3 of the licence to be disposed at Tees Bay A (as defined in Schedule 1) and excludes dredged material from certain locations defined at 5.2.3 from being disposed at Tees Bay A (“**the Licenced Dredging Area**”)[**CB/A79-96**].
+   * 19. Also included with the licence online were ‘shape files’, which are files that can be read by specific computer software to plot geographical locations. I used those shape files to produce a map that can be found at SG1/2; [**CB/A119]**. I believe this shows the same  area  as  the  IP’s  map  at  p.11  of  Tees  Maintenance  Dredge  Protocol  (MDP) Baseline Document (“**the Baseline Document”**) [**CB/A382**].
+   * 20. I have checked the shape files against Schedules 2 and 3 of the licence, and I believe they mirror one another.
+   * 21. On the basis of the shape files and schedules 2 and 3, I therefore calculate that the total area from which dredged material may be disposed at sea is 12,104,900m2.
+   * 22. Based on the IP’s navigation channel documentation, I understand that approximately 6,300,000m2 or slightly over 50% of the total area from which dredged material can be disposed at sea, has historically been dredged [**CB/A265-271**].
+   * 23. Pursuant to section 5.2.3 of the licence, dredged material from certain areas must be excluded  from  disposal  at  sea  [**CB/A75-76**].  I  asked  for  information  about  these areas before the licence was granted, but responses from the MMO indicated that they did not hold the information [**CB/A322-329**] (see para. 58 below). Following pre-action correspondence, the MMO has sent a map showing approximate locations of the excluded areas [**SB/C799**].
-I have extensive career experience specializing for over 20 years in colloid science and \\
+==== Disposal area and the surrounding environment ====
-surface analysis at ICI and latterly in corrosion protection by polymeric materials at \\
-AkzoNobel. My background involves the precise characterization of how chemicals are \\
+   * 24. Included in  the  claim  bundle  is a  map  showing  the  disposal area,  Tees Bay  A, the Teesmouth  and  Cleveland  Coast  Special  Protection  Area  (SPA)  boundary,  and  the water bodies regulated under  the  Water Environment  (Water Framework  Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017 [**SB/C988-992**].
-adsorbed onto surfaces and absorbed into particles. This is the fundamental physical \\
+   * 25. Also included in the claim bundle is a map showing the Greater North Sea area of the Marine Strategy Area [**SB/C891**].
-mechanism  governing  how  historical  industrial  toxins  (such  as  PCBs)  bind  to  river \\
+   * 26. The  Licenced  Dredging  Area  lies  within  the  Teesmouth  and  Cleveland  Coast  SPA. According to Natural England:
-sediment.  I  was  also  involved  in  the  design  of  rigorous  testing  protocols  for \\
+      * //The SPA comprises of a wide variety of habitats including: intertidal sand and mudflats,  rocky  shore,  saltmarsh,  freshwater  marsh,  saline  lagoons,  sand dunes and estuarine and coastal waters on and around the Tees estuary, which has been considerably modified by human activities. These habitats provide feeding  and  roosting  opportunities  for  important  number  of  waterbirds  in winter and during passage periods including in particular common redshank, red knot and ruff, which occur in internationally important numbers. Freshwater and brackish pools also support breeding avocet during summer.  //
-heterogeneous  industrial  materials,  determining  the  statistical  validity  of  sampling \\
+      * //The saltmarsh and mudflat habitats of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA are  of  great  importance  to  a  diverse  assemblage  of  bird  species.  Mudflats support high densities of benthic invertebrates, including worms, molluscs and crustaceans,  which  provide  an  important  food  resource  for  migrant  and overwintering SPA bird species. Areas of saltmarsh provide significant feeding and roosting opportunities for many species of waterbird including common redshank and red knot.  //
-regimes specifically, calculating the minimum sample density required to detect 'out-\\
+      * //In summer, little tern breed on the sandy beaches within the site and feed out at sea while the common tern, which breed at various locations, feed within the River Tees and associated water bodies and within the wider estuary mouth and bay. In late summer, Sandwich tern aggregate in important numbers at Coatham Sands, Seal Sands, North Gare Sands/Seaton Snook and Bran Sands when on passage. (p.5) [**CB/A422]** //
-of-spec' anomalies (hotspots) within large-scale production outputs. \\
+   * 27. The SPA is designated for the following features:
+      * Avocet, Recurvirostra avosetta - A132-A, b
+      * Common tern, Sterna hirundo - A193, b
+      * Knot, Calidris canutus - A143, nb
+      * Little tern, Sterna albifrons - A195, b
+      * Redshank, Tringa totanus - A162, nb
+      * Ruff, Calidris pugnax - A151, nb
+      * Sandwich  tern,  Thalasseus  sandvicensis,  syn.  Sterna  sandvicensis  -
+      * Waterbird assemblage
+   * 28. The site is currently in unfavourable condition as a result of nutrients, namely nitrogen. I understand that the SPA is not regularly tested for the presence of toxic chemicals, but I note that in its consultation response on the IP’s application, Natural England noted that the Supplementary Advice on Conservation Objectives for the SPA contains a target to “reduce aqueous contaminants to levels equating to High Status according to Annex VIII and Good Status according to Annex X of the Water Framework Directive, avoiding deterioration from existing levels.”** [SB/B713**]
+   * 29. The  permitted  dredging area  also lies within  the  Tees Coastal Water Body  and  the Tees Water Body.
+   * 30. The Tees Coastal Water Body runs parallel to the coastline and is a coastal water body with an area of 8,844 ha. It has moderate ecological status. It has high levels of specific pollutants  and  fails  to  meet  standards  for  some  priority  hazardous  substances, including mercury and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) [**CB/A120**].
+   * 31. The ‘Tees Water Body’ is a transitional water body covering an area of 1,148ha. It currently has moderate ecological status. It has high levels of numerous pollutants and fails to meet standards required for priority hazardous substances such as benzo(g-h-i)perylene,  mercury,  polybrominated  diphenyl  ethers  (PBDE)  and  tributyltin compounds. The reason for not achieving ‘good’ status is either due to industry, is unknown, or cannot be attributed.[**CB/A120**]
+   * 32. Also of relevance to this area is the UK Marine Strategy Part One (2019) [**SB/C874**]. Tees Bay A sits within the Greater North Sea area. The Strategy makes clear that:
+      - Harbour  seals  in  the  Greater  North  Sea  have  not  yet  achieved  Good Environmental Status (“**GES**”)  and there  is a  lack  of certainty  about  the causes of decline (pp 51-53);
+      - Highly persistent legacy chemicals such as PCBs in marine sediments and biota  are  the  cause  of the  few failures to  achieve GES  in  respect  of  the ‘contaminant’ descriptor, mainly in coastal waters close to polluted sources (pp 75 - 79).
+   * 33. The UK Marine Strategy Part Three: 2025 UK programme of measures, confirms that pollution  and  toxins,  including  the  prevalence  of  pollutants  (for  example, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and other persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in the environment and cetaceans, are a threat to harbour seals (p.11), although the cause of  harbour  seal  decline  is  unknown  (p.11)  [**SB/C931**].  Furthermore,  in  relation  to contaminants,  failures  to  meet  GES  come  from  highly  persistent  legacy  chemicals mainly in coastal waters close to polluted sources (2.12.1). It is recognised that:
+      * “Actions  to  address  the  following  would  support  the  maintenance  of  GES related to Contaminants (D8) and the further safeguarding of the UK marine environment:
+      * legacy chemicals in sediment and biota
+      * new chemicals or groups of chemicals with the potential to adversely impact sea life and human health that are continually being identified (for example, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances: PFAS) (para.2.12.1)” [**SB/933**].
-.
+==== IP’s application ====
+   * 34. I first learnt that the IP had applied for the Licence on 7 July 2025 (“**the Application**”) [**CB/A344**]. I contacted the MMO to point out that no documents were visible on the MCMS Public Register. This was rectified on 9 July 2025.
+   * 35. The Application included the IP’s Baseline Document [**CB/A366-486**]. The Baseline Document includes plume modelling for Tees Bay A at Figures 6-3 and 6-7 (pages 33-34).
+   * 36. At SG1/3; [**CB/A119]** is a map showing the plume modelling overlaid on the map showing the SPA boundary. It shows that the modelled plume from disposal at Tees Bay A will reach very close to the SPA.
+   * 37. The IP’s modelling does not appear to have been updated since first prepared for the 2006  Environmental  Statement  for  the  Northern  Gateway  Container  Terminal (para.6.1.4, Baseline document) [**CB/A404**]. From the description in the 2006 ES, it appears that this modelling assumes only ‘calm (no wave) conditions’ (p.451) so does not model for more dynamic sea conditions. It also appears to assume disposal in the centre  of  the  disposal  quadrant  only  [**CB/A182**].  In  fact,  disposal  will  take  place throughout the entire quadrant depending on the month of the year (Fig 3-3, Baseline document)  [**CB/A390**].  As  such,  the  IP’s  model  is  not  an  exact  description  of  the effects and suffers from inherent uncertainty. On the basis of the modelling provided, it is at least possible to say that there is a real risk that the plume would, at times, reach into the SPA. Despite almost 20 years of disposal at Tees Bay A since the model was first produced, it does not appear that there has been any real-life monitoring or measurement of the plume to assess the model’s accuracy.
+   * 38. However, in 2022, CEFAS, following a mass crustacean die-off event, shows the plume from disposal at Tees Bay A entering the SPA and remaining suspended for at least 72 hours after disposal [**CB/A203**]. I exhibit at SG1/4 an annotated map showing the CEFAS plume in comparison to the SPA [**CB/A121**].
+   * 39. It is clear from the mid-licence sediment analysis carried out by the IP in 2017/18 and 2024, and submitted by the IP in support of the application, that the plume contains sediment with levels of contamination that would not ordinarily be safe for disposal at sea.
+   * 40. In accordance with OSPAR requirements, Cefas applies formal “action levels” (‘**ALs**’) to  certain  pollutants  and  (since  2020)  has  applied  de  facto  ALs  known  as  “other assessment  criteria”  for  pollutants  for  which  the  AL  levels  are  recommended  for revision and to pollutants without formal ALs. The IP’s mid-licence sediment analysis shows:
+      - In the year 3 (2018 and 2019) results:
+         - 36 samples from the benthic environment of the River Tees, taken in 2019, indicated  that  there  were  concentrations  of  metals,  the  majority  of  PAH compounds, C-napthalenes, phenanthrene, and PCBs in excess of Cefas AL1, and  high  concentrations  of  total  hydrocarbons.  In  some  samples,  levels  of BDE209  were  far  in  excess  of  the  AL2  “other  assessment  criteria”  (up  to 407 g/kg as compared to the AL2 threshold of 47.5 g/kg) **[CB/A446**].
+         - 10 surface sediment samples taken upstream in December 2018 showed one exceedance each of AL2 for PCB, mercury and zinc, and BDE209 far in excess of the AL2 “other assessment criteria” (up to 912 g/kg as compared to the AL2 threshold of 47.5 g/kg) [**CB/A448**].
+         - For Low Molecular Weight (‘LMW’) PAHs, only one sample out of a total of 57 samples was below the AL1 “other assessment criteria”, and only four of the 57 samples were below the AL2 “other assessment criteria”, meaning the vast majority exceeded the AL2 “other assessment criteria” [**CB/A446-450**].
+      - In the year 9 results (2024) of sedimentary analysis of 31 samples from the benthic environment of the Harbour, taken in 2024:
+         - levels of metals were in excess of Cefas Action Level 1 [**CB/A460**];
+         - levels of LMW  PAHs in excess of the  AL2 “other assessment  criteria”  (up  to 4820 g/kg as compared to the AL2 threshold of 3160g/kg) [**CB/A460-466**];
+         - levels of PBDEs, BDE209, BDE99 and BDE100 far in excess of the AL2 “other assessment criteria”: BDE209 up to 337 g/kg as compared to the AL2 threshold of  47.5 g/kg;  BDE99  up  to  6g/kg  as  compared  to  the  AL2  threshold  of 1.0 g/kg; BDE100 up to 1.27g/kg as compared to the AL2 threshold of 1g/kg [**CB/A460-466**].
+   * 41. For  reasons  that  are  unclear,  while  these  exceedances  would  ordinarily  render  the material unsafe  for disposal at  sea  if  dredged  from any  other  river in England, the MMO has permitted the material to be disposed at Tees Bay A because the material is taken from a river with historically and consistently high levels of pollution.
-During  my  career,  I  was  a  lead  specialist  in  designing  measurement  protocols  for \\
+==== Representations regarding the Application ====
-complex,  heterogeneous  materials.  This  required  developing  rigorous  statistical \\
-frameworks  to  ensure  that  small-scale  samples  accurately  represented  large-scale \\
+   * 42. On 6 August 2025, I submitted objections to the Application on behalf of the NEMRG, including  a  cover  note  [**SB/B575**],  a  representation  [**SB/B601**]  and  supporting evidence [**SB/577-600**]. Amongst other concerns, I highlighted the following issues:
-industrial outputs.
+      - More frequent sampling is required;
+      - Current and past sampling is insufficient (the sediment quality analyses are insufficient and treat the samples as being homogenous and coming from a river with predictable sediment quality);
+      - Proposed sampling fails to satisfy OSPAR guidelines;
+      - A  precautionary  approach  should  be  adopted,  particularly  because  of crustacean die-offs and seal pup mortality;
+      - The  method  of  dredging  is  inappropriate  in  the  Tees  Estuary  (using  a trailing  suction  hopper  dredger  (“**TSHD**”)  and  allowing  overspill)  and  is dangerously outdated, with no monitoring during dredging or any annual calendar of ecological sensitivity; and
+      - Alternatives  for  the  disposal  of  dredged  material  should  be  assessed. [**CB/A550-574; A601-699**].
+   * 43. My concerns about inadequate sampling arose from the fact that only a small number of samples have been undertaken in the past relative to the size of the contaminated area from which this material is dredged.
+   * 44. Concerns  that  the  2025  licence  would  not  improve  on  this  low  level  of  historical sampling were raised by the sample plan advice for mid-licence sampling in relation to the  2015-2025  licence  (L/2015/00427/7),  which  again  required  limited  sampling despite suggesting the sampling plan was ‘in accordance with the OSPAR Guidelines for  the  Management  of  Dredged  Material’  (the  **“OSPAR  Guidelines**)  [**CB/A258-246**].
+   * 45. Although a second letter from the MMO to the IP about mid licence sediment sampling under the 2015 licence stated that “MMO remind the applicant that new sampling will be required for any future Marine Licence applications” [**CB/A342-343**], upon calling and emailing the MMO, I learnt that no more samples would be taken, as the samples from October 2024 were considered sufficient to inform their recommendations for the licence [**SB/B548-549**].
+   * 46. Considering  the  industrialized  nature  of  the  Tees  for  over  a  century,  it  is  widely accepted, including by the MMO and the IP, that there are a range of contaminants in the benthic environment, sometimes at levels that are clearly harmful to the marine environment [**CB/A383-389; SB/B544; SB/B713; SB/B664-673**]. For example, I exhibit a map showing the location of harmful contaminants (Low Molecular Weight (LMW)  Poly  Aromatic  Hydrocarbons  (PAHs))  at  levels  that  should  not  ordinarily  be disposed of at sea, based on CEFAS’ interpretation of the IP’s 2024 sampling under the 2015 licence [SG1/5; **CB/A122**]. The map shows that sediment removed from 29 of the 31 sampled locations would ordinarily be considered unsafe for disposal at sea.
+   * 47. It is also clear that there is a lack of homogeneity in the benthic environment, not least since  six  areas  are  excluded  from  the  disposal  licence  due  to  contamination [**CB/A387-388; SB/B544; CB/A75-77; SB/B664-673**].
+   * 48. Moreover, there is both long-standing and recent evidence that PCB contamination of the food chain is contributing to the high and unsustainable levels of Tees seal pup mortality  (PCBs  bioaccumulate  higher  up  the  food  chain,  posing  greater  risks  to mammals at the top of the food chain, such as seals, cetaceans, and humans). It is likely that dredging and/or disposal of dredged material is contributing to the high level of PCBs in seals. I referenced evidence relating to seal pup mortality in my consultation responses [**SB/B553; SB/B565-566**]. The evidence, which I linked in footnotes to my consultation responses, is exhibited at **[CB/A164-179; CB/A277-298]**
+   * 49. I have conducted a detailed analysis of the spatial resolution of sampling proposed in the 2024 sampling plan **[**SG1/6,** CB/A123]**. On the basis of that analysis:
+      - It appears that the MMO has required only 20 samples to be produced from the industrialized river channel (Chart Sectors 1–9), which covers 10 to 12 kilometers of river; and
+      - In specific instances, such as Chart Sector 4 and Chart Sector 5, the plan relies on a single sample to verify over a kilometer of riverbed.
+   * 50. Although the MMO claims to apply OSPAR Guidelines on sediment sampling, it appears that the samples required from the IP by the MMO were dramatically less than what is required by the OSPAR Guidelines [**SB/C166-169**]. In particular, paragraphs 5.1 to 5.4 of those Guidelines require samples to take account not only of the volume of material to be dredged (by reference to the ‘volumetric table’) but also of the area to be dredged (by reference to the ‘spatial table’ at para.5.3). The MMO’s sampling plan from  2024  upon  which  reliance  is  placed  for  the  Licence  appears  to  have  only considered the volume of the material to be dredged, and did not consider the spatial table at all.
+   * 51. The Licenced Dredging Area is 12,104,900m2 (see para.21 above). Applying the spatial table to this area, I calculate that the minimum number of samples required by the OSPAR Guidelines is 611, almost twenty times the number required by the MMO. Even if the OSPAR Guidelines are applied only to the approximately 50% of the Harbour that has historically been dredged (c. 6,300,000m2) (para.22 above), the minimum number of samples required by the OSPAR Guidelines is still 320, more than 10 times the number required by the MMO.
+   * 52. The  reason  the  OSPAR  Guidelines  require  consideration  of  a  spatial  approach, alongside  a  volumetric  approach  is  to  ensure  that  horizontally  and  vertically heterogeneous  benthic  environments  are  properly  sampled.  A purely  volume-based approach assumes the riverbed is a homogeneous tank, ignoring the spatial variance of sediment deposition. It results in a low-level sampling resolution (approx. 1 sample per km), which lacks the statistical power to detect localized contamination hotspots. In a highly heterogenous riverbed like the Tees, that approach gives rise to a very real risk  that  highly  contaminated  sediment  is  missed  because  the  sampling  grid  is  too coarse  to  detect  the  hazards.  Consequently,  the safety  data  derived  from  this plan represents a 'false negative': it does not prove the river is safe; it proves only that the sampling grid was too coarse to detect the hazards. Adopting such a coarse sampling grid is therefore providential rather than precautionary. This was the point I made on behalf of NEMRG in our consultation response.
+   * 53. Even using a volume-based approach only, the number of samples required by the MMO  appears  to  be  less  than  required  by  the  application  of  the  volume  table  at para.5.3 of the OSPAR Guidelines. Below is a table showing the samples required using the spatial table and the volume table at para.5.3  of the OSPAR Guidelines for the whole licenced area or the area that has historically been dredged.
- \\
+^Area (m2)^Volume (m3)^Samples Required using Spatial Approach^Samples Required using Volume Approach^
-.
+|Licenced Area|12,104,900|2,400,000|611|35|
+|Estimated Area Dredged Historically|6,300,000|2,400,000|320|35|
-I  am  a  former  manager  of  a  physical  measurement  group  specializing  in  particle \\
+   * The table demonstrates that even if only a volume-based approach is used, the number of samples should have been 35, not 31.
-analysis  (sizing,  surface  area,  and  heterogeneity)  and  the  development  of \\
+   * 54. In practice, 31 samples for the total licenced area equates to 1 sample for every 55 football pitches of the licensed area (or 1 sample for every 29 football pitches of the estimated area historically dredged).
-robotic/automated testing systems for scale-up operations. Dredging is fundamentally \\
+   * 55. The fact that sampling has been undertaken for many years is no answer to the under-sampling taking place. First, the OSPAR Guidelines are clear that sampling should be repeated every three years. While in some circumstances, this can extend to 5 years, that is only if contamination is below AL1 and there are no material changes to the sediment (e.g dredging) (para.5.5 [**CB/A387-388**]). Neither condition applies to the Tees. In addition, it is clear that the Tees is a dynamic river, as demonstrated by the fact that mid-licence sampling in 2019 at Billingham’s Reach returned PCBs at levels above AL2 [**CB/A387-388**]. While subsequent sampling returned samples below AL2, this demonstrates only that the contaminated sediment likely moved elsewhere in the river.
-a particle transport issue.
+   * 56. This  under-sampling  is  particularly  problematic  in  relation  to  areas  that  are  being dredged  in  close  proximity  to  excluded  areas,  which  are  known  to  contain contaminants at levels prohibited from disposal at sea.
+   * 57. There are several mechanisms by which contaminated material is likely to be carried from exclusion zones into the dredged channels:
+      - ‘Sloughing’  -  the  local  physical  collapse  of  the  estuary  bed  at  the  edge  of  an exclusion zone resulting in contaminated material falling or sliding into the dredged channel. This occurs as a result of gravity and the slope created by dredging an area adjacent to the exclusion zones.
+      - ‘Scour’ - tidal currents will result in the "stripping" of the surface of the riverbed from the exclusion zone, with the resuspended sediment settling in deeper areas within the dredged river.
+      - Propeller wash due to ship manoeuvres close to an excluded zone will result in violent  resuspension  of  excluded  sediment,  which  drifts  into  the  river  and  is deposited in the dredged channel.
+      - Under  certain  circumstances  a  high-concentration  mud-like  suspension  can  be formed on the riverbed, which, if this happens in an exclusion zone, will flow under, gravity carrying contamination into the river channel.
-**A103**
+==== Follow-up correspondence with the MMO ====
+   * 58. On 5 November 2025, I contacted the MMO to request coordinates of areas excluded from dredging and also stated that I believed the licence was in breach of the OSPAR Convention, as it did not consider the inadvertent release of fine particles, which are more contaminated than bulk sediment. I did not receive any response from the MMO [**SB/B729-750**]. On 30 November 2025, I followed up with the MMO and asked for the  missing  information  for  the  mid-licence  sampling  [**CB/A323-329**].  On  1 December 2025, the MMO informed me that my query had been sent to the licence holder [**CB/A322-329**]. I responded the same day and stated that the MMO should be able to provide me with a correct version of "MMO_Results_Template MAR00179 V3.xlsm",  which  was  quoted  in  licence  application  MLA/2025/00263  and  is  on  the Public Register as a return to variation 4 of L/2015/00427 [**CB/A323**]. I noted that the version in the Public Register is missing all coordinates and instead has locations on  land.  Following  pre-action  correspondence,  the  MMO  has  sent  a  map  showing approximate locations of the excluded areas [**SB/C799**].
+   * 59. On 5 December 2025, I sent an information request to PD Teesport Limited under the Environmental  Information  Regulation  2004  requesting  information  about  their dredging and assessment of alternatives [**CB/A140-141]. ** I understand a response will be provided on 5 February 2026 [**CB/A150-152**].
+==== Aarhus Convention Claim  ====
+   * 60. I am advised that this is an Aarhus Convention claim as defined at CPR 46.24(2)(a) as it  is  brought  by  a  member  of the  public  (construed  in  accordance  with  the  Aarhus Convention) by way of judicial review, which challenges the legality of the decision, which  is  within  the  scope  of  9(3)  of  the  Aarhus  Convention,  there  being  a  wide definition of the environment at Article 2(3) of the Aarhus Convention.
+   * 61. I understand that the Court rules concerning costs protection in Aarhus Convention claims require me to file a statement of my financial resources (verified by a statement of  truth)  which  provides  details  of  (i)  my  significant  assets,  liabilities,  income  and expenditure  and  (ii)  the  aggregate  amount  of  financial  support  which  has  been provided and which is likely to be provided to me by any other person.
+   * 62. I therefore exhibit a schedule of my financial resources pursuant to CPR 46.25(1)(b) verified by a statement of truth.  I am advised that following the judgment of Mr Justice Dove in R (RSPB, FoE and ClientEarth) v SSJ and LC [2017] EWHC 2309 (Admin), the statement of financial resources is to be regarded as a confidential document.
+=== Costs estimate ====
+   * 63. I have been advised by my solicitors that they estimate my own costs of this judicial review to be in the region of £20,000 - £25,000 plus VAT if the case progresses in a straightforward manner. Counsel’s fees will be in the region of £20,000 - £25,000 plus VAT. There will also be court fees, including the fee for issue, which is £174, and a continuation fee of £874, and potentially printing costs in the region of £1,000 - £1,500 + VAT for the claim and trial bundle.
+   * 64.As to the Defendant’s costs, my solicitors have estimated an exposure to its costs of circa  £10,000  -  £25,000  if  the  case  progresses  in  a  straightforward  manner.    In addition, I understand that there is also a potential risk that I will be ordered to pay the costs of the Interested Party, which I am told can often exceed the Defendant’s claim for costs by a considerable margin.
+   * 65.I believe I can just about afford to bring these proceedings, as there has been some fund-raising  in  the  local  community  to  meet  the  costs.  I  have  also  set  up  a crowdfunding page on CrowdJustice which has, as at the date of this statement, raised £8,313.
+  * 66. However,  I  cannot  afford  exposure  to  the  Defendant  and  Interested  Party’s  costs beyond £5,000.  This means that if the Court does not grant me costs protection in this Aarhus Convention claim, these proceedings would be prohibitively expensive for me.
+  * 67. The order that I seek is pursuant to CPR 46.26(2)(a) i.e., that the Claimant’s liability for the Defendant and Interested Party’s costs is limited to £5,000. The liability of the Defendant  for  the  Claimant’s  costs  is  limited  to  £35,000  and  the  liability  of  the Interested Parties for the Claimant’s costs is limited to £35,000.
-{{Final%20Witness%20Statement%20of%20Simon%20Gibbon%20-%20SIGNED003.png?892x1262|background image}}
+==== Statement of Truth ====
+   * 68. I believe that the facts in this witness statement are true, or in context, true to the best  of  my  knowledge,  information,  and  belief.    I  understand  that  proceedings  for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
+……………………………………..**
+DR SIMON GIBBON**
+January 2026
- \\
+==== Supporting Documents ====
-**Involvement with the River Tees and NEMRG \\
- \\
-**10.
-Since 2022, I have applied my expertise specifically to sediment contamination issues \\
+**For: Claimant **
-in the River Tees, collaborating with academic researchers to catalogue and scrutinize \\
-the environmental risk assessments provided by the Marine Management Organisation \\
-(MMO). In the last 3 years, I have conducted independent forensic reviews of a range \\
-of  South  Tees  planning  applications  and  collaborated  with  scientists  from  Durham \\
-University.  \\
-.
+**Witness: Dr Simon Gibbon
+st Witness statement **
-I  am  an  active  member  of  the  North  East  Marine  Research  Group  (“NEMRG”),  an \\
+**Exhibit: SG1
-informal  coalition  comprising  academics  from  Durham,  Newcastle,  and  Hull \\
+Made: 13 January 2026 **
-Universities, representatives from the North East Fishing Collective, the Fishmongers’ \\
-Company’s Fisheries Charitable Trust, and community organizations (including Climate \\
-Action  Stokesley  &  Villages  and  Reclaim  Our  Sea).  NEMRG  has  been  active  since \\
-approximately 2023.  \\
-.
+**IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE **
-My work with NEMRG involves the examination of technical data to ensure regulatory \\
+**AC-2026-LON- **
-bodies  are  adequately  addressing  contamination  issues.  In  2023,  I  developed  and \\
-continue  to  enhance  a  bespoke  web  application  that  allows  for  the  independent \\
-analysis  and  comparison  of  sediment  quality  datasets  provided  in  marine  licence \\
-applications.  \\
-.
+**KING’S BENCH DIVISION **
-Between  2022  and  2023,  I  led  a  specialist  working  group  (comprising  two \\
+**ADMINISTRATIVE COURT  **
-environmental  scientists  and  a  forensic  analyst)  to  conduct  a  detailed  audit  of  the \\
-documentation  surrounding  a  widely-publicized  crustacean  die-off.  We  investigated \\
-causal  links,  identified  inconsistencies  in  agency  reporting,  and  assessed  risks \\
-associated with capital dredging. \\
-.
+**In the matter of an application for permission for judicial review **
-As a part of NEMRG, I engaged with the Environment Agency regarding the extensive \\
+**BETWEEN: **
-contamination caused by the South Bank Quay dredge—an event now documented on \\
-the Marine Case Management System’s Public Register. \\
-** **
-.
+**DR SIMON GIBBON **
-I have presented written and oral evidence and technical critiques to various regulatory \\
+**Claimant **
-and governmental bodies, including the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) \\
-Committee (at the inquiry into the crustacean die-off), the Multi-Council Crustacean \\
-Die-off Working Group (detailing the risks of Teesworks developments and specifically \\
-highlighting the environmental dangers of trailing suction hopper dredgers operating \\
-with  overspill),  the  MMO  (technical  representations  objecting  to  marine  licence \\
-applications),  and  a  2023  joint  meeting  with  the  MMO,  Environment  Agency,  and \\
-Natural  England  (to  formally  articulate  our  ongoing  concerns  regarding  the \\
-deteriorating state of the River Tees).** \\
- **
-**A104**
-{{Final%20Witness%20Statement%20of%20Simon%20Gibbon%20-%20SIGNED004.png?892x1262|background image}}
-.
-My overarching objective in relation to my activities outlined above is to try to address \\
-contamination in the River Tees with a view to improving the state of the river and the \\
-wider environment. ** **
- \\
-**Permitted dredging area \\
- \\
-**17.
-My application for judicial review relates to the MMO’s decision to grant a ten-year \\
-marine  licence  for  the  disposal  of  dredged  material.  I  understand  dredging  by  PD \\
-Teesport  Limited  (“**the  IP**”)  as  the  Port  Authority  is  permitted  by  the  Tees  and \\
-Hartlepool Port Authority Act 1966. That Act does not, however, authorize the disposal \\
-of  dredged  material  at  sea,  which  requires  a  marine  licence.  The  2025  licence \\
-(L/2025/00366/1) was granted  by  the  MMO on 5 November  2025  (“**the Licence**”) \\
-[**CB/A66-78**]. \\
-.
-The Licence permits dredged material taken from areas defined in Schedule 2 and 3 \\
-of the licence to be disposed at Tees Bay A (as defined in Schedule 1) and excludes \\
-dredged material from certain locations defined at 5.2.3 from being disposed at Tees \\
-Bay A (“**the Licenced Dredging Area**”)[**CB/A79-96**].  \\
-.
-Also included with the licence online were ‘shape files’, which are files that can be read \\
-by specific computer software to plot geographical locations. I used those shape files \\
-to produce a map that can be found at SG1/2; [**CB/A119]**. I believe this shows the \\
-same  area  as  the  IP’s  map  at  p.11  of  Tees  Maintenance  Dredge  Protocol  (MDP) \\
-Baseline Document (“**the Baseline Document”**) [**CB/A382**].
- \\
-.
-I have checked the shape files against Schedules 2 and 3 of the licence, and I believe \\
-they mirror one another.
- \\
-.
-On the basis of the shape files and schedules 2 and 3, I therefore calculate that the \\
-total area from which dredged material may be disposed at sea is 12,104,900m2.    \\
-.
-Based on the IP’s navigation channel documentation, I understand that approximately \\
-,300,000m2 or slightly over 50% of the total area from which dredged material can \\
-be disposed at sea, has historically been dredged [**CB/A265-271**].   \\
-.
-Pursuant to section 5.2.3 of the licence, dredged material from certain areas must be \\
-excluded  from  disposal  at  sea  [**CB/A75-76**].  I  asked  for  information  about  these \\
-areas before the licence was granted, but responses from the MMO indicated that they \\
-did not hold the information [**CB/A322-329**] (see para. 58 below). Following pre-\\
-action correspondence, the MMO has sent a map showing approximate locations of \\
-the excluded areas [**SB/C799**].
-** \\
- **
-**A105**
-{{Final%20Witness%20Statement%20of%20Simon%20Gibbon%20-%20SIGNED005.png?892x1262|background image}}
-**Disposal area and the surrounding environment \\
- \\
-**24.
-Included in  the  claim  bundle  is a  map  showing  the  disposal area,  Tees Bay  A, the \\
-Teesmouth  and  Cleveland  Coast  Special  Protection  Area  (SPA)  boundary,  and  the \\
-water bodies regulated under  the  Water Environment  (Water Framework  Directive) \\
-(England and Wales) Regulations 2017 [**SB/C988-992**].   \\
-.
-Also included in the claim bundle is a map showing the Greater North Sea area of the \\
-Marine Strategy Area [**SB/C891**].  \\
-.
-The  Licenced  Dredging  Area  lies  within  the  Teesmouth  and  Cleveland  Coast  SPA. \\
-According to Natural England:  \\
-The SPA comprises of a wide variety of habitats including: intertidal sand and \\
-mudflats,  rocky  shore,  saltmarsh,  freshwater  marsh,  saline  lagoons,  sand \\
-dunes and estuarine and coastal waters on and around the Tees estuary, which \\
-has been considerably modified by human activities. These habitats provide \\
-feeding  and  roosting  opportunities  for  important  number  of  waterbirds  in \\
-winter and during passage periods including in particular common redshank, \\
-red knot and ruff, which occur in internationally important numbers. Freshwater \\
-and brackish pools also support breeding avocet during summer.  \\
- \\
-The saltmarsh and mudflat habitats of the Teesmouth and Cleveland Coast SPA \\
-are  of  great  importance  to  a  diverse  assemblage  of  bird  species.  Mudflats \\
-support high densities of benthic invertebrates, including worms, molluscs and \\
-crustaceans,  which  provide  an  important  food  resource  for  migrant  and \\
-overwintering SPA bird species. Areas of saltmarsh provide significant feeding \\
-and roosting opportunities for many species of waterbird including common \\
-redshank and red knot.  \\
- \\
-In summer, little tern breed on the sandy beaches within the site and feed out \\
-at sea while the common tern, which breed at various locations, feed within \\
-the River Tees and associated water bodies and within the wider estuary mouth \\
-and bay. In late summer, Sandwich tern aggregate in important numbers at \\
-Coatham Sands, Seal Sands, North Gare Sands/Seaton Snook and Bran Sands \\
-when on passage. (p.5) [**CB/A422]**
- \\
-.
-The SPA is designated for the following features:
-•  Avocet, Recurvirostra avosetta - A132-A, b \\
-•  Common tern, Sterna hirundo - A193, b  \\
-•  Knot, Calidris canutus - A143, nb  \\
-•  Little tern, Sterna albifrons - A195, b  \\
-•  Redshank, Tringa totanus - A162, nb
-**A106**
-{{Final%20Witness%20Statement%20of%20Simon%20Gibbon%20-%20SIGNED006.png?892x1262|background image}}
-•  Ruff, Calidris pugnax - A151, nb \\
-•  Sandwich  tern,  Thalasseus  sandvicensis,  syn.  Sterna  sandvicensis  -
-A191, nb
-•  Waterbird assemblage
-.
-The site is currently in unfavourable condition as a result of nutrients, namely nitrogen. \\
-I understand that the SPA is not regularly tested for the presence of toxic chemicals, \\
-but I note that in its consultation response on the IP’s application, Natural England \\
-noted that the Supplementary Advice on Conservation Objectives for the SPA contains \\
-a target to
-“reduce aqueous contaminants to levels equating to High Status according
-to Annex VIII and Good Status according to Annex X of the Water Framework Directive, \\
-avoiding deterioration from existing levels.”** [SB/B713**] \\
-.
-The  permitted  dredging area  also lies within  the  Tees Coastal Water Body  and  the \\
-Tees Water Body.  \\
-.
-The Tees Coastal Water Body runs parallel to the coastline and is a coastal water body \\
-with an area of 8,844 ha. It has moderate ecological status. It has high levels of specific \\
-pollutants  and  fails  to  meet  standards  for  some  priority  hazardous  substances, \\
-including mercury and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) [**CB/A120**]. \\
-.
-The ‘Tees Water Body’ is a transitional water body covering an area of 1,148ha. It \\
-currently has moderate ecological status. It has high levels of numerous pollutants and \\
-fails to meet standards required for priority hazardous substances such as benzo(g-h-\\
-i)perylene,  mercury,  polybrominated  diphenyl  ethers  (PBDE)  and  tributyltin \\
-compounds. The reason for not achieving ‘good’ status is either due to industry, is \\
-unknown, or cannot be attributed.[**CB/A120**]  \\
-.
-Also of relevance to this area is the UK Marine Strategy Part One (2019) [**SB/C874**]. \\
-Tees Bay A sits within the Greater North Sea area. The Strategy makes clear that:
-a.  Harbour  seals  in  the  Greater  North  Sea  have  not  yet  achieved  Good
-Environmental Status (“**GES**”)  and there  is a  lack  of certainty  about  the \\
-causes of decline (pp 51-53);
-b.  Highly persistent legacy chemicals such as PCBs in marine sediments and
-biota  are  the  cause  of the  few failures to  achieve GES  in  respect  of  the \\
-‘contaminant’ descriptor, mainly in coastal waters close to polluted sources \\
-(pp 75 - 79).
-** \\
-**33.
-The UK Marine Strategy Part Three: 2025 UK programme of measures, confirms that \\
-pollution  and  toxins,  including  the  prevalence  of  pollutants  (for  example, \\
-Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and other persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in the \\
-environment and cetaceans, are a threat to harbour seals (p.11), although the cause \\
-of  harbour  seal  decline  is  unknown  (p.11)  [**SB/C931**].  Furthermore,  in  relation  to
-**A107**
-{{Final%20Witness%20Statement%20of%20Simon%20Gibbon%20-%20SIGNED007.png?892x1262|background image}}
-contaminants,  failures  to  meet  GES  come  from  highly  persistent  legacy  chemicals \\
-mainly in coastal waters close to polluted sources (2.12.1). It is recognised that:
-“Actions  to  address  the  following  would  support  the  maintenance  of  GES \\
-related to Contaminants (D8) and the further safeguarding of the UK marine \\
-environment:  \\
-• legacy chemicals in sediment and biota\\
-• new chemicals or groups of chemicals with the potential to adversely impact\\
-sea life and human health that are continually being identified (for example,\\
-per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances: PFAS) (para.2.12.1)” [**SB/933**].
-**IP’s application **
-.
-I first learnt that the IP had applied for the Licence on 7 July 2025 (“**the Application**”)\\
-[**CB/A344**]. I contacted the MMO to point out that no documents were visible on the\\
-MCMS Public Register. This was rectified on 9 July 2025.
-.
-The Application included the IP’s Baseline Document [**CB/A366-486**]. The Baseline\\
-Document includes plume modelling for Tees Bay A at Figures 6-3 and 6-7 (pages 33-\\
-).
-.
-At SG1/3; [**CB/A119]** is a map showing the plume modelling overlaid on the map\\
-showing the SPA boundary. It shows that the modelled plume from disposal at Tees\\
-Bay A will reach very close to the SPA.
-.
-The IP’s modelling does not appear to have been updated since first prepared for the\\
-  Environmental  Statement  for  the  Northern  Gateway  Container  Terminal\\
-(para.6.1.4, Baseline document) [**CB/A404**]. From the description in the 2006 ES, it\\
-appears that this modelling assumes only ‘calm (no wave) conditions’ (p.451) so does\\
-not model for more dynamic sea conditions. It also appears to assume disposal in the\\
-centre  of  the  disposal  quadrant  only  [**CB/A182**].  In  fact,  disposal  will  take  place\\
-throughout the entire quadrant depending on the month of the year (Fig 3-3, Baseline\\
-document)  [**CB/A390**].  As  such,  the  IP’s  model  is  not  an  exact  description  of  the\\
-effects and suffers from inherent uncertainty. On the basis of the modelling provided,\\
-it is at least possible to say that there is a real risk that the plume would, at times,\\
-reach into the SPA. Despite almost 20 years of disposal at Tees Bay A since the model\\
-was first produced, it does not appear that there has been any real-life monitoring or\\
-measurement of the plume to assess the model’s accuracy.
-.
-However, in 2022, CEFAS, following a mass crustacean die-off event, shows the plume\\
-from disposal at Tees Bay A entering the SPA and remaining suspended for at least 72\\
-hours after disposal [**CB/A203**]. I exhibit at SG1/4 an annotated map showing the\\
-CEFAS plume in comparison to the SPA [**CB/A121**].
-**A108**
-{{Final%20Witness%20Statement%20of%20Simon%20Gibbon%20-%20SIGNED008.png?892x1262|background image}}
-.
-It is clear from the mid-licence sediment analysis carried out by the IP in 2017/18 and \\
-, and submitted by the IP in support of the application, that the plume contains \\
-sediment with levels of contamination that would not ordinarily be safe for disposal at \\
-sea.  \\
-.
-In accordance with OSPAR requirements, Cefas applies formal “action levels” (‘**ALs**’) \\
-to  certain  pollutants  and  (since  2020)  has  applied  de  facto  ALs  known  as  “other \\
-assessment  criteria”  for  pollutants  for  which  the  AL  levels  are  recommended  for \\
-revision and to pollutants without formal ALs. The IP’s mid-licence sediment analysis \\
-shows:
-a.  In the year 3 (2018 and 2019) results:
-i.  36 samples from the benthic environment of the River Tees, taken in 2019,
-indicated  that  there  were  concentrations  of  metals,  the  majority  of  PAH \\
-compounds, C-napthalenes, phenanthrene, and PCBs in excess of Cefas AL1, \\
-and  high  concentrations  of  total  hydrocarbons.  In  some  samples,  levels  of \\
-BDE209  were  far  in  excess  of  the  AL2  “other  assessment  criteria”  (up  to \\
-g/kg as compared to the AL2 threshold of 47.5 g/kg) **[CB/A446**].
-ii.  10 surface sediment samples taken upstream in December 2018 showed one
-exceedance each of AL2 for PCB, mercury and zinc, and BDE209 far in excess \\
-of the AL2 “other assessment criteria” (up to 912
-g/kg as compared to the AL2
-threshold of 47.5
-g/kg) [**CB/A448**.
-iii.  For Low Molecular Weight (‘LMW’) PAHs, only one sample out of a total of 57
-samples was below the AL1 “other assessment criteria”, and only four of the \\
- samples were below the AL2 “other assessment criteria”, meaning the vast \\
-majority exceeded the AL2 “other assessment criteria” [**CB/A446-450**].
-b.  In the year 9 results (2024) of sedimentary analysis of 31 samples from the benthic
-environment of the Harbour, taken in 2024:
-i.  levels of metals were in excess of Cefas Action Level 1 [**CB/A460**];
-ii.  levels of LMW  PAHs in excess of the  AL2 “other assessment  criteria”  (up  to
-g/kg as compared to the AL2 threshold of 3160g/kg) [**CB/A460-466**];
-iii.  levels of PBDEs, BDE209, BDE99 and BDE100 far in excess of the AL2 “other
-assessment criteria”: BDE209 up to 337
-g/kg as compared to the AL2 threshold
-of  47.5
-g/kg;  BDE99  up  to  6g/kg  as  compared  to  the  AL2  threshold  of
-.0
-g/kg; BDE100 up to 1.27g/kg as compared to the AL2 threshold of 1g/kg
-[**CB/A460-466**].
-**A109**
-{{Final%20Witness%20Statement%20of%20Simon%20Gibbon%20-%20SIGNED009.png?892x1262|background image}}
-.
-For  reasons  that  are  unclear,  while  these  exceedances  would  ordinarily  render  the \\
-material unsafe  for disposal at  sea  if  dredged  from any  other  river in England, the \\
-MMO has permitted the material to be disposed at Tees Bay A because the material is \\
-taken from a river with historically and consistently high levels of pollution.
- \\
-**Representations regarding the Application \\
- \\
-**42.
-On 6 August 2025, I submitted objections to the Application on behalf of the NEMRG, \\
-including  a  cover  note  [**SB/B575**],  a  representation  [**SB/B601**]  and  supporting \\
-evidence [**SB/577-600**]. Amongst other concerns, I highlighted the following issues:
-a.  More frequent sampling is required;  \\
-b.  Current and past sampling is insufficient (the sediment quality analyses are
-insufficient and treat the samples as being homogenous and coming from \\
-a river with predictable sediment quality);
-c.  Proposed sampling fails to satisfy OSPAR guidelines;  \\
-d.  A  precautionary  approach  should  be  adopted,  particularly  because  of
-crustacean die-offs and seal pup mortality;
-e.  The  method  of  dredging  is  inappropriate  in  the  Tees  Estuary  (using  a
-trailing  suction  hopper  dredger  (“**TSHD**”)  and  allowing  overspill)  and  is \\
-dangerously outdated, with no monitoring during dredging or any annual \\
-calendar of ecological sensitivity; and
-f.  Alternatives  for  the  disposal  of  dredged  material  should  be  assessed.
-[**CB/A550-574; A601-699**].
- \\
-.
-My concerns about inadequate sampling arose from the fact that only a small number \\
-of samples have been undertaken in the past relative to the size of the contaminated \\
-area from which this material is dredged.  \\
-.
-Concerns  that  the  2025  licence  would  not  improve  on  this  low  level  of  historical \\
-sampling were raised by the sample plan advice for mid-licence sampling in relation to \\
-the  2015-2025  licence  (L/2015/00427/7),  which  again  required  limited  sampling \\
-despite suggesting the sampling plan was ‘in accordance with the OSPAR Guidelines \\
-for  the  Management  of  Dredged  Material’  (the  **“OSPAR  Guidelines**)**  **[**CB/A258-\\
-**].  \\
-.
-Although a second letter from the MMO to the IP about mid licence sediment sampling \\
-under the 2015 licence stated that “MMO remind the applicant that new sampling will \\
-be required for any future Marine Licence applications” [**CB/A342-343**], upon calling \\
-and emailing the MMO, I learnt that no more samples would be taken, as the samples \\
-from October 2024 were considered sufficient to inform their recommendations for the \\
-licence [**SB/B548-549**]. \\
-**A110**
-{{Final%20Witness%20Statement%20of%20Simon%20Gibbon%20-%20SIGNED010.png?892x1262|background image}}
-.
-Considering  the  industrialized  nature  of  the  Tees  for  over  a  century,  it  is  widely \\
-accepted, including by the MMO and the IP, that there are a range of contaminants in \\
-the benthic environment, sometimes at levels that are clearly harmful to the marine \\
-environment [**CB/A383-389; SB/B544; SB/B713; SB/B664-673**]. For example, \\
-I exhibit a map showing the location of harmful contaminants (Low Molecular Weight \\
-(LMW)  Poly  Aromatic  Hydrocarbons  (PAHs))  at  levels  that  should  not  ordinarily  be \\
-disposed of at sea, based on CEFAS’ interpretation of the IP’s 2024 sampling under \\
-the 2015 licence [SG1/5; **CB/A122**]. The map shows that sediment removed from 29 \\
-of the 31 sampled locations would ordinarily be considered unsafe for disposal at sea. \\
-.
-It is also clear that there is a lack of homogeneity in the benthic environment, not least \\
-since  six  areas  are  excluded  from  the  disposal  licence  due  to  contamination \\
-[**CB/A387-388; SB/B544; CB/A75-77; SB/B664-673**]. \\
-.
-Moreover, there is both long-standing and recent evidence that PCB contamination of \\
-the food chain is contributing to the high and unsustainable levels of Tees seal pup \\
-mortality  (PCBs  bioaccumulate  higher  up  the  food  chain,  posing  greater  risks  to \\
-mammals at the top of the food chain, such as seals, cetaceans, and humans). It is \\
-likely that dredging and/or disposal of dredged material is contributing to the high level \\
-of PCBs in seals. I referenced evidence relating to seal pup mortality in my consultation \\
-responses [**SB/B553; SB/B565-566**]. The evidence, which I linked in footnotes to \\
-my consultation responses, is exhibited at **[CB/A164-179; CB/A277-298]** \\
- \\
-.
-I have conducted a detailed analysis of the spatial resolution of sampling proposed in \\
-the 2024 sampling plan **[**SG1/6,** CB/A123]**. On the basis of that analysis:
-a.  It appears that the MMO has required only 20 samples to be produced from the
-industrialized river channel (Chart Sectors 1–9), which covers 10 to 12 kilometers \\
-of river; and
-b.  In specific instances, such as Chart Sector 4 and Chart Sector 5, the plan relies on
-a single sample to verify over a kilometer of riverbed.
-.
-Although the MMO claims to apply OSPAR Guidelines on sediment sampling, it appears \\
-that the samples required from the IP by the MMO were dramatically less than what \\
-is required by the OSPAR Guidelines [**SB/C166-169**]. In particular, paragraphs 5.1 \\
-to 5.4 of those Guidelines require samples to take account not only of the volume of \\
-material to be dredged (by reference to the ‘volumetric table’) but also of the area to \\
-be dredged (by reference to the ‘spatial table’ at para.5.3). The MMO’s sampling plan \\
-from  2024  upon  which  reliance  is  placed  for  the  Licence  appears  to  have  only \\
-considered the volume of the material to be dredged, and did not consider the spatial \\
-table at all. \\
-** **
-**A111**
-{{Final%20Witness%20Statement%20of%20Simon%20Gibbon%20-%20SIGNED011.png?892x1262|background image}}
-.
-The Licenced Dredging Area is 12,104,900m2 (see para.21 above). Applying the spatial \\
-table to this area, I calculate that the minimum number of samples required by the \\
-OSPAR Guidelines is 611, almost twenty times the number required by the MMO. Even \\
-if the OSPAR Guidelines are applied only to the approximately 50% of the Harbour \\
-that has historically been dredged (c. 6,300,000m2) (para.22 above), the minimum \\
-number of samples required by the OSPAR Guidelines is still 320, more than 10 times \\
-the number required by the MMO.
- \\
-.
-The  reason  the  OSPAR  Guidelines  require  consideration  of  a  spatial  approach, \\
-alongside  a  volumetric  approach  is  to  ensure  that  horizontally  and  vertically \\
-heterogeneous  benthic  environments  are  properly  sampled.  A purely  volume-based \\
-approach assumes the riverbed is a homogeneous tank, ignoring the spatial variance \\
-of sediment deposition. It results in a low-level sampling resolution (approx. 1 sample \\
-per km), which lacks the statistical power to detect localized contamination hotspots. \\
-In a highly heterogenous riverbed like the Tees, that approach gives rise to a very real \\
-risk  that  highly  contaminated  sediment  is  missed  because  the  sampling  grid  is  too \\
-coarse  to  detect  the  hazards.  Consequently,  the safety  data  derived  from  this plan \\
-represents a 'false negative': it does not prove the river is safe; it proves only that the \\
-sampling grid was too coarse to detect the hazards. Adopting such a coarse sampling \\
-grid is therefore providential rather than precautionary. This was the point I made on \\
-behalf of NEMRG in our consultation response. \\
-.
-Even using a volume-based approach only, the number of samples required by the \\
-MMO  appears  to  be  less  than  required  by  the  application  of  the  volume  table  at \\
-para.5.3 of the OSPAR Guidelines. Below is a table showing the samples required using \\
-the spatial table and the volume table at para.5.3  of the OSPAR Guidelines for the \\
-whole licenced area or the area that has historically been dredged. \\
-** **
-** **
-**Area (m2) **
-**Volume (m3) **
-**Samples Required **
-**using Spatial **
-**Approach **
-** **
-**Samples Required **
-**using Volume **
-**Approach  **
-** **
-**Licenced Area **
-** **
-,104,900
-,400,000
-**Estimated Area Dredged **
-**Historically  **
-** **
-,300,000
-,400,000
-The table demonstrates that even if only a volume-based approach is used, the number \\
-of samples should have been 35, not 31.
-**A112**
-{{Final%20Witness%20Statement%20of%20Simon%20Gibbon%20-%20SIGNED012.png?892x1262|background image}}
-.
-In practice, 31 samples for the total licenced area equates to 1 sample for every 55 \\
-football pitches of the licensed area (or 1 sample for every 29 football pitches of the \\
-estimated area historically dredged). \\
-.
-The fact that sampling has been undertaken for many years is no answer to the under-\\
-sampling taking place. First, the OSPAR Guidelines are clear that sampling should be \\
-repeated every three years. While in some circumstances, this can extend to 5 years, \\
-that is only if contamination is below AL1 and there are no material changes to the \\
-sediment (e.g dredging) (para.5.5 [**CB/A387-388**]). Neither condition applies to the \\
-Tees. In addition, it is clear that the Tees is a dynamic river, as demonstrated by the \\
-fact that mid-licence sampling in 2019 at Billingham’s Reach returned PCBs at levels \\
-above AL2 [**CB/A387-388**]. While subsequent sampling returned samples below AL2, \\
-this demonstrates only that the contaminated sediment likely moved elsewhere in the \\
-river. \\
-.
-This  under-sampling  is  particularly  problematic  in  relation  to  areas  that  are  being \\
-dredged  in  close  proximity  to  excluded  areas,  which  are  known  to  contain \\
-contaminants at levels prohibited from disposal at sea.  \\
-.
-There are several mechanisms by which contaminated material is likely to be carried \\
-from exclusion zones into the dredged channels:
-i.
-‘Sloughing’  -  the  local  physical  collapse  of  the  estuary  bed  at  the  edge  of  an \\
-exclusion zone resulting in contaminated material falling or sliding into the dredged \\
-channel. This occurs as a result of gravity and the slope created by dredging an \\
-area adjacent to the exclusion zones.
-ii.
-‘Scour’ - tidal currents will result in the "stripping" of the surface of the riverbed \\
-from the exclusion zone, with the resuspended sediment settling in deeper areas \\
-within the dredged river.
-iii.
-Propeller wash due to ship manoeuvres close to an excluded zone will result in \\
-violent  resuspension  of  excluded  sediment,  which  drifts  into  the  river  and  is \\
-deposited in the dredged channel.
-iv.
-Under  certain  circumstances  a  high-concentration  mud-like  suspension  can  be \\
-formed on the riverbed, which, if this happens in an exclusion zone, will flow under, \\
-gravity carrying contamination into the river channel.
-** \\
-Follow-up correspondence with the MMO \\
-** \\
-.
-On 5 November 2025, I contacted the MMO to request coordinates of areas excluded \\
-from dredging and also stated that I believed the licence was in breach of the OSPAR \\
-Convention, as it did not consider the inadvertent release of fine particles, which are \\
-more contaminated than bulk sediment. I did not receive any response from the MMO \\
-[**SB/B729-750**]. On 30 November 2025, I followed up with the MMO and asked for
-**A113**
-{{Final%20Witness%20Statement%20of%20Simon%20Gibbon%20-%20SIGNED013.png?892x1262|background image}}
-the  missing  information  for  the  mid-licence  sampling  [**CB/A323-329**].  On  1 \\
-December 2025, the MMO informed me that my query had been sent to the licence \\
-holder [**CB/A322-329**]. I responded the same day and stated that the MMO should \\
-be able to provide me with a correct version of "MMO_Results_Template MAR00179 \\
-V3.xlsm",  which  was  quoted  in  licence  application  MLA/2025/00263  and  is  on  the \\
-Public Register as a return to variation 4 of L/2015/00427 [**CB/A323**]. I noted that \\
-the version in the Public Register is missing all coordinates and instead has locations \\
-on  land.  Following  pre-action  correspondence,  the  MMO  has  sent  a  map  showing \\
-approximate locations of the excluded areas [**SB/C799**].
-** **
-** **
-.
-On 5 December 2025, I sent an information request to PD Teesport Limited under the \\
-Environmental  Information  Regulation  2004  requesting  information  about  their \\
-dredging and assessment of alternatives [**CB/A140-141]. ** I understand a response \\
-will be provided on 5 February 2026 [**CB/A150-152**].
-** **
-** **
-Aarhus Convention Claim  \\
- \\
-.
-I am advised that this is an Aarhus Convention claim as defined at CPR 46.24(2)(a) as \\
-it  is  brought  by  a  member  of the  public  (construed  in  accordance  with  the  Aarhus \\
-Convention) by way of judicial review, which challenges the legality of the decision, \\
-which  is  within  the  scope  of  9(3)  of  the  Aarhus  Convention,  there  being  a  wide \\
-definition of the environment at Article 2(3) of the Aarhus Convention. \\
-.
-I understand that the Court rules concerning costs protection in Aarhus Convention \\
-claims require me to file a statement of my financial resources (verified by a statement \\
-of  truth)  which  provides  details  of  (i)  my  significant  assets,  liabilities,  income  and \\
-expenditure  and  (ii)  the  aggregate  amount  of  financial  support  which  has  been \\
-provided and which is likely to be provided to me by any other person. \\
-.
-I therefore exhibit a schedule of my financial resources pursuant to CPR 46.25(1)(b) \\
-verified by a statement of truth.  I am advised that following the judgment of Mr Justice \\
-Dove in
-R (RSPB, FoE and ClientEarth) v SSJ and LC [2017] EWHC 2309 (Admin), the
-statement of financial resources is to be regarded as a confidential document. \\
-Costs estimate \\
- \\
-.
-I have been advised by my solicitors that they estimate my own costs of this judicial \\
-review to be in the region of £20,000 - £25,000 plus VAT if the case progresses in a \\
-straightforward manner. Counsel’s fees will be in the region of £20,000 - £25,000 plus \\
-VAT. There will also be court fees, including the fee for issue, which is £174, and a \\
-continuation fee of £874, and potentially printing costs in the region of £1,000 - £1,500 \\
-+ VAT for the claim and trial bundle. \\
-**A114**
-{{Final%20Witness%20Statement%20of%20Simon%20Gibbon%20-%20SIGNED014.png?892x1262|background image}}
-.
-As to the Defendant’s costs, my solicitors have estimated an exposure to its costs of\\
-circa  £10,000  -  £25,000  if  the  case  progresses  in  a  straightforward  manner.    In\\
-addition, I understand that there is also a potential risk that I will be ordered to pay\\
-the costs of the Interested Party, which I am told can often exceed the Defendant’s\\
-claim for costs by a considerable margin.
-.
-I believe I can just about afford to bring these proceedings, as there has been some\\
-fund-raising  in  the  local  community  to  meet  the  costs.  I  have  also  set  up  a\\
-crowdfunding page on CrowdJustice which has, as at the date of this statement, raised\\
-£8,313.
-.
-However,  I  cannot  afford  exposure  to  the  Defendant  and  Interested  Party’s  costs\\
-beyond £5,000.  This means that if the Court does not grant me costs protection in\\
-this Aarhus Convention claim, these proceedings would be prohibitively expensive for\\
-me.
-.
-The order that I seek is pursuant to CPR 46.26(2)(a) i.e., that the Claimant’s liability\\
-for the Defendant and Interested Party’s costs is limited to £5,000. The liability of the\\
-Defendant  for  the  Claimant’s  costs  is  limited  to  £35,000  and  the  liability  of  the\\
-Interested Parties for the Claimant’s costs is limited to £35,000.
-Statement of Truth
-.
-I believe that the facts in this witness statement are true, or in context, true to the\\
-best  of  my  knowledge,  information,  and  belief.    I  understand  that  proceedings  for\\
-contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made,\\
-a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest\\
-belief in its truth.
-……………………………………..** \\
-DR SIMON GIBBON** \\
- January 2026
-**A115**
-{{Final%20Witness%20Statement%20of%20Simon%20Gibbon%20-%20SIGNED015.png?892x1262|background image}}
-**For: Claimant **
-**Witness: Dr Simon Gibbon \\
-st Witness statement **
-**Exhibit: SG1 \\
-Made: 13 January 2026 **
-**IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE **
-**AC-2026-LON- **
-**KING’S BENCH DIVISION **
-**ADMINISTRATIVE COURT  **
-**In the matter of an application for permission for judicial review **
-**BETWEEN: **
-**DR SIMON GIBBON **
-**Claimant **
 **-and-**
-**MARINE MANAGEMENT ORGANISATION **
+**MARINE MANAGEMENT ORGANISATION **
 **Defendant **
 **-and-**
-**PD TEESPORT LIMITED **
+**PD TEESPORT LIMITED **
-**Interested Party **
-**%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%_ **
-**EXHIBIT SG1 **
-**%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%_ **
-This exhibit marked “SG1” is the exhibit referred to in the first witness statement of Dr Simon \\
-Gibbon made on 13 January 2026.
-Contents
-. CONFIDENTIAL  Exhibit  SG1/1  -  schedule  of  the  Claimant’s  financial  resources
-pursuant to CPR 46.26…..………………………………………………………………………xx
-. Exhibit SG1/2 - Map of dredging area as defined by Schedules 2 and 3 of the 2025
-Licence ………………………………………………………………………………………………..xx
-. Exhibit SG1/3 - Map of Tees Bay A, SPA, and the Water Bodies with IP’s plume
-modelling (annotated version of fig.6.5 of the Baseline document)…………….xx
-. Exhibit SG1/4 -  Map of CEFAS dispersal plume (Fig.7 of 09.22 report) annotated
-to showin location of SPA……………………………………………………………………….xx
+**Interested Party **
-. Exhibit SG1/5 - Map of Low Molecular Weight PAHs at levels of concern and levels
+**%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%_ **
-prohibited from disposal based on 2024 sampling…………………………………….xx
+**EXHIBIT SG1 **
-. Exhibit  SG1/6  -  Claimant's  map  of  spatial  resolution  of  MMO's  2024  sampling
+**%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%%%__%%_ **
-plan……………………………………………………………………………………………………..xx
+This exhibit marked “SG1” is the exhibit referred to in the first witness statement of Dr Simon Gibbon made on 13 January 2026.
-**A116**
+Contents
-Statement of Truth \\
+   - CONFIDENTIAL  Exhibit  SG1/1  -  schedule  of  the  Claimant’s  financial  resources pursuant to CPR 46.26…..………………………………………………………………………xx
-I believe that the facts stated in this schedule of financial resources are true, or in context, \\
+   - Exhibit SG1/2 - Map of dredging area as defined by Schedules 2 and 3 of the 2025 Licence ………………………………………………………………………………………………..xx
-true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.  I understand that proceedings for \\
+   - Exhibit SG1/3 - Map of Tees Bay A, SPA, and the Water Bodies with IP’s plume modelling (annotated version of fig.6.5 of the Baseline document)…………….xx
-contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false \\
+   - Exhibit SG1/4 -  Map of CEFAS dispersal plume (Fig.7 of 09.22 report) annotated to showin location of SPA……………………………………………………………………….xx
-statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
+   - Exhibit SG1/5 - Map of Low Molecular Weight PAHs at levels of concern and levels prohibited from disposal based on 2024 sampling…………………………………….xx
+   - Exhibit  SG1/6  -  Claimant's  map  of  spatial  resolution  of  MMO's  2024  sampling plan……………………………………………………………………………………………………..xx
-**…………………………… \\
+Statement of Truth
-DR SIMON GIBBON** \\
- January 2026
-**A118**
+I believe that the facts stated in this schedule of financial resources are true, or in context, true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
+**……………………………
+DR SIMON GIBBON**
+January 2026