Royal Dutch Shell Group .com
LETTER
FAXED TO MR CHRISTOPHER JAMES OF HAKLUYT 8 JUNE 04
Mr Christopher
James
Director
Hakluyt & Company Limited
34 Upper Brook Street
London
W1K 7QS
2 PAGES BY FAX ONLY TO:
0207 491 1844
Dear Mr James
Thank you for your faxed
letter received at 10.30 am this morning. It is clear from press reports that
you are a highly secretive organisation, so the fact that we have been in
direct communication by telephone, email and letter is significant. It
suggests that you are concerned.
Even if you are not
prepared to confirm that Shell has been a client, they have already admitted
that this is the case. Of course we also have the period of several years with
common directors and shareholders, one of whom was Chairman of your company,
and the other, President of the Hakluyt Foundation. I understand that the
Foundation is supposed to fulfil an oversight function equivalent to the role
of the Intelligence and Security Committee over the official UK security
services, including your former employer, the Secret Intelligence Service.
I note your assurance that
none of Hakluyt’s “work” has related to me, my family, or our former business.
Your assurance would of course have carried far greater weight if you had not
included the significant qualification, “so far as I am aware”. Since you are
a founder of Hakluyt, is it possible that Hakluyt could have been involved in
our case without your knowledge? That is the implication of your disclaimer,
which bears all the legal hallmarks of a Whitehall Mandarin/lawyer.
It was of course an
interesting situation with the Church of England Legal Office. Apparently no
one wanted to admit a connection with your fax, which had no intended
recipient printed on it. Hence it remained abandoned in the hands of Mr
Webster for a number of days until I deduced that it was almost certainly
meant for your Hakluyt co-director, Sir Anthony Hammond KCB QC. If he was not
the intended recipient it would mean a second Church of England lawyer has a
connection with Hakluyt.
Logic and commonsense, as
set out in my email to Mr Kendall Freeman dated 20 May 04 (posted on
shell2004.com), suggests that Shell would have likely used what was close to
being an in-house resource, Hakluyt. But as I pointed out, it could have used
another similar spy firm (or even more than one spy firm).
It is also conceivable
that Royal Dutch Petroleum issued a brief separately from Shell
Transport/Shell UK. I was in correspondence with the President of Royal Dutch
Petroleum, Mr Maarten van den Bergh, at about that time. This would explain
why Shell UK legal director, Mr Richard Wiseman has no knowledge of the
activities of Mr ****** *****, the American “spook” from ***** whose
energetic and sinister activities were also mentioned in the above email to
Kendall Freeman.
What I do know is that
Richard Wiseman (and Kendall Freeman) has admitted in writing that the
undercover agent who was caught red-handed at our offices, engaged in illegal
activity (Mr Christopher Phillips) was working for Shell. He presented fake
documents which falsely indicated that he was a “director” of a company,
Cofton Consultants, which turned out to be non-existent. Shell also admitted
that other agents were involved on our case, but despite the seriousness of
the crimes which took place, would not disclose the scope or nature of the
brief which had been issued.
Since all of this and
other undercover activity had a devastating impact on our preparation for a
High Court Trial, it is a serious matter, which is why I have written to Lord
Falconer, the Lord Chancellor.
We were already fighting
an unequal battle pitted against a malicious multinational giant with an army
of lawyers and unlimited shareholder resources. It was therefore ruthless of
Shell to make a mismatched contest even more uneven by resorting to underhand
“activities” (the term you use in your letter which, incidentally, was
precisely the same term used by Shell and Kendall Freeman in relation to their
undercover agents).
Shell management pledges
“transparency” in its Statement of General Business Principles. In view of
your connection with its senior management, perhaps you could ask them to at
long last come clean on this matter, as they have with the reserves scandal.
It would allow Shell to put these shameful matters to rest so that it could
start the battle to restore its reputation. In so doing, if you are innocent
of any involvement it would leave Hakluyt and its galaxy of the establishment
elite in the clear.
Since it is frustrating to
be met with an almost universal wall of silence when justice and fair play are
at stake, I am grateful that you have at least responded, even though your
carefully constructed assurance, as it stands, is ambiguous and therefore
unsatisfactory. In common parlance, it leaves Hakluyt with wiggle room. If
Hakluyt had NO association with ANY of these matters, why not say so.
I will publish this
correspondence so that interested parties can draw their own conclusions.
Yours sincerely
Alfred Donovan
Click Here to return to
HOME PAGE