THREATS AND INTIMIDATION BY SHELL DURING PERIOD WISEMAN IN CHARGE OF SHELL UK DEFENCE

Threatening letter from Shell U.K. Managing Director, David Varney (Copied to David Pirret - now a Vice President of Shell International Limited: 21 October 1994

Letter from Shell solicitors DJ Freeman (AKA Kendall Freeman) challenging John Donovan to substantiate allegations about "Shell UK and its lawyers" having "bombarded my company and my family with threats over the years (verbally and in writing."  : 21 May 1998

Response letter from John Donovan substantiating the threats made by Shell and its employees/agents upto May 1998: 25 May 1998

Mark Moody-Stuart, Chairman and Managing Director, The "Shell" Transport and Trading Company, p.l.c. issues threat on behalf of Shell UK Ltd: 9 April 1998

1ST EXAMPLE OF SHELL INTENT TO PREVENT EMBARRASSING INFORMATION FROM REACHING SHAREHOLDERS

Flawed Shell Make Money Game

Mackrell Turner letter to Royds solictors acting for John Donovan/Don Marketing: 18 May 1994

2ND EXAMPLE OF SHELL INTENT TO PREVENT EMBARRASSING INFORMATION FROM REACHING SHAREHOLDERS

Shell Funding Deed signed by Shell managing director David Varney (now Sir David Varney): 6 July 1995

3RD EXAMPLE OF SHELL INTENT TO PREVENT EMBARRASSING INFORMATION FROM REACHING SHAREHOLDERS

High level April 1998 correspondence with Shell involving Richard Wiseman (see letter from Jyoti Munsiff - 6 April 1998

Letter from John Donovan to Shell Chairman Mark Moody-Stuart:1 April 1998

Reply letter on behalf of Moody-Stuart from Jyoti Munsiff, Company Secretary, Shell Transport and Trading Company plc: 6 April 1998

Reply letter from Mark Moody-Stuart, Chairman and Managing Director, Shell Transport & Trading Co Plc: 6 April 1998

Reply letter from John Donovan to Mark Moody-Stuart: 14 April 1998

"Yet you are not prepared for the same information to be supplied, even on a confidential basis, to the people who actually own the company - your shareholders. Your decision to keep company members in the dark speaks absolute volumes. So much for the core principle of “openness”. When it comes to the crunch, covering-up a catalogue of misdeeds by Shell managers, despite incontrovertible evidence of flagrant breaches of the principles of honesty and integrity, apparently takes priority."

Link to "Unloveable Shell, the goddess of oil" Guardian article mentioned in the correspondence (takes time to load but well worth the wait)

Extract from response letter sent to The Guardian by Mark Moody-Stuart

UNDERCOVER ACTIVITY AGAINST THE DONOVAN'S IN THE PERIOD WISEMAN IN CHARGE OF DEFENCE CASE

A number of sinister characters suddenly came on the scene in a short period of time, including an American gentleman who arrived from overseas and tracked down and interviewed our key witnesses, falsely claiming to be a journalist for The European newspaper. Another undercover agent under the name of Christopher Phillips had been caught red-handed illegally opening private mail at our offices. The homes of our solicitor, a key witness and our own home were all burglarised in the run up to the Smart Trial and related documents examined. Shell denied any association with the burglaries and the intimidation of our witnesses.

Copies of a selection of relevant self-explanatory correspondence published below.

Letter to John Donovan from Shell solicitors, DJ Freeman: 16 June 1998

John Donovan letter to Richard Wiseman: 23 June 1998

Richard Wiseman letter to John Donovan: 24 June 1998

Richard Wiseman letter to John Donovan: 1 July 1998

Letter to John Donovan from Shell solicitors DJ Freeman: 3 July 1998

If, nevertheless, the police wish to obtain any further information from my clients or from anyone involved in enquiries on their behalf, including Mr Phillips, then, as has been said on several previous occasions, the fullest of co-operation will be given.

Letter from Richard Wiseman to John Donovan: 9 July 1998

The activities of Mr Phillips have, of course, been admitted.

John Donovan letter to Office for Supervising of Solicitors: 10 July 1998

Letter to John Donovan from Shell solicitors DJ Freeman: 11 August 1998(confirms internal investigation by Shell)

Letter to John Donovan from Shell solicitors DJ Freeman: 26 October 1998 (Confirms an internal investigation by Shell)

AS A SEPARATE ARTICLE

DEFENDING THE COMPANY'S GOOD NAME AND REPUTATION: Richard Wiseman article in OPDirect Magazine: November 1998

FUEL FOR THOUGHT

DEFENDING THE COMPANY'S GOOD NAME AND REPUTATION

There has recently been some publicity surrounding a writ issued against Shell UK by Mr John Donovan, director of a company called Don Marketing, who claims that his company invented the SMART loyalty programme and that he or his company should be compensated for its use. Shell UK is strongly defending the claim, having carefully investigated and discussed it with Mr Donovan and his solicitors. Mr Donovan has been making a number of unpleasant allegations in public and in the press, and has been handing out leaflets to staff.

Shell UK Legal director Richard Wiseman explains.

Mr Donovan and his companies have made several claims against Shell in the past. For good economic reasons, these cases were settled before they reached court. At that time, both parties agreed that there should be no further public debate about these matters - an obligation which Shell UK has consistently honoured, but which Mr Donovan has not.

However, we feel that the current case cannot be concluded satisfactorily except by allowing it to go all the way to court. We are vigorously defending the writ Mr Donovan has issued about SMART, and counterclaiming against him for failing to honour his previous agreement. We expect the case to go to court next year.

NEXT 18 LINES REDACTED BY SHELL

Shell UK could as the courts for an injunction to prevent Mr Donovan and his father from making any further unpleasant allegations.

NEXT THREE LINES PARTLY REDACTED

But with Mr Donovan already alleging that we may have taken all sorts of measures to try to keep give him an opportunity to try to present himself as a 'David' fighting a 'Goliath'.

In general, most companies like ours can see only too well that libel proceedings may attract far more publicity than the original allegations ever had or would be likely to have. An example is the recent "McLibel" case which tied up McDonald's for years. Any case we brought would not necessarily be the same, but it can be a major business diversion for no real gain to the company. And people don't always remember who won.

One of our colleagues who has been smeared by Mr Donovan’s assertions

NEXT TWO LINES PARTLY REDACTED

who has since moved on to another job with Shell. The hurtful allegations being made against Andrew in public leave him in a difficult position. Shell UK is satisfied that he has done nothing wrong, either in relation to this claim or any previous claims. We are confident that he has acted properly throughout.

Me John Donovan is one of a number of people who from time to time have approached us to suggest marketing concepts. Generic concepts in marketing are often quite common and not original in themselves. The basic concept for the SMART scheme had already been around for some time before Mr Donovan approached us. Where a scheme actually developed may seem to some resemblance to unsolicited material from third parties, allegations of this sort can be complicated to refute.

However, I am satisfied that the SMART scheme was developed entirely independently of Mr Donovan, and we believe this will become clear when the case goes to court.

IN BOX DISPLAYED IN MIDDLE OFARTICLE:

“WE ARE VIGOROUSLY DEFENDING THE WRIT MR DONOVAN HAS ISSUED ABOUT SMART AND COUNTERCLAIMING AGAINST HIM FOR FAILING TO HONOUR HIS PREVIOUS AGREEMENT. WE EXPECT THE CASE TO GO TO COURT NEXT YEAR."

Statement Issued by Shell U.K. Public Affairs UKCM and Legal UKLG: DON MARKETING: THE FACTS: November 1998

DON MARKETING: THE FACTS

There has been some leafleting of staff at Shell headquarters buildings in connection with a writ issued against Shell UK by Mr John Donovan, director of a company called Don Marketing. Mr Donovan has been making a number of unpleasant allegations in his leaflets and in the press. This fact sheet explains the background for staff.

Mr Donovan claims that his company invented the SMART loyalty programme and that he or his company should be compensated for its use. Shell UK is strongly defending the claim, having carefully investigated and discussed it with Mr Donovan and his solicitors.

Mr Donovan and his companies have made several claims against Shell in the past. For good economic reasons, these cases were settled before they reached court. At that time, both parties agreed that there should be
no further public debate about these matters, an obligation which Shell UK has consistently honoured, but which Mr Donovan has not.

Shell UK believes however that the current case cannot be concluded satisfactorily except by allowing it to proceed to court. We are vigorously defending the writ Mr Donovan has issued about SMART, and counter claiming against him for failing to honour his previous agreement. We expect the case to go to court next year.

(THE NEXT 7 LINES OF PRINT AND MOST OF THE EIGHTH LINE ARE REDACTED)

But with Mr Donovan already alleging that we have taken numerous measures to try to keep him quiet, we are aware that this could give him an opportunity to try to present himself as a 'David' fighting a 'Goliath'.

In general, companies know that libel proceedings may attract far more publicity than the original allegations had or would be likely to have. An example is the recent "Mclibel" case which tied up McDonalds for years.

Any case we brought would not necessarily be the same, but it can be a major business diversion for no real gain to the company, and people don't always remember who won.

One of our colleagues who has been smeared by Mr Donovan's assertions is INFORMATION REDACTED PARTLY FROM TWO LINES who still works for Shell UK. We are satisfied that Andrew has done nothing wrong, either in relation to this claim or any previous claims. We are confident that he has acted properly throughout.

Mr John Donovan is one of a number of people who from time to time hove approached us to suggest marketing concepts. Generic concepts in marketing are often quite common and not original in themselves. The basic concept for the SMART scheme had already been around for some time before Mr Donovan approached us.

We are satisfied that the SMART scheme was developed entirely independently of Mr Donovan. We believe this will become clear when the case goes to court.

Shell U.K. Limited Public Affairs UKCM and Legal UKLG November 1998

Both items, the article by Wiseman and the Statement issued by his department were supplied to us following a SAR application to Shell under the Data Protection Act. Shell censored the content. Both items should have been supplied to us by Shell as part of the discovery process. They were unlawfully withheld from us and the Judge.

THE SMART TRIAL: AMBUSH, DECEPTION, ENTRAPMENT AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST

WITNESS STATEMENT OF SHELL UK LEGAL DIRECTOR: RICHARD MAX WISEMAN (Currently Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer, Royal Dutch Shell Plc): 13 April 1999

Report of Dr Audrey Giles, The Giles Document Laboratory: 28 June 1999

Judges Comments: Comments made in Open Court by Mr Justice Laddie: 6 July 1999

(Marketing Week article quoted in comments)

Clear from comments that Judge was hopelessly biased

Shell withheld the true terms of settlement from the Judge.

This is confirmed in an email sent to me by Mr. Wiseman on 17 June 1998

The first email at the top of a related email string. Please read them all.

As can be seen, at the time of making the above comments, the Judge was totally unaware that Shell had paid my legal fees and that I had received a secret payment.

The Judge thought I had surrendered when in fact it was the other way round.

Email correspondence with Peter Smith, Clerk to Mr Justice Laddie: November 2002

Email correspondence with Mark Platt-Mills QC (copied to Richard Wiseman): 30 January 2003

Email from Richard Wiseman confirming that settlement terms had been withheld from the Judge: 17 June 2008