Failure to Submit SEA to minister, page-6

It seems there is no record of this court ordered submission being done.
Ministry has no record of having had received any submission by the due date or the afforded grace period.

It does seem that the minister was rather onside at the beginning and all Hancock had to oversee was that the submission met the court ordered deadline of July 13 and if not, then at least the 10 day grace period thereafter. They literally just had essentially put a one liner so to speak along the lines of: dear minister, we wish to give an opportunity motivate you to do an SEA though we believe that we are above and beyond compliant in all environmental matters and will keep you advised of any changes".

The minister could have then said there was no need for an SEA and she would keep onto of communications. It was that simple.

Instead now he, specifically Hancock, has allowed it to become a breach of a court order, which was one of the conditions that the previous section 93 notices were lifted, the new licenses were issued and the 2 appeals by CER were stayed.
As such, who knows what is now going on post deadline.

One can assume that if they are engaging with CER, outside of teh court ordered deadline, that CER has the upper hand and at anytime can simply lodge their writ against MSR for contempt of court which would result in the above items being undone and CER appeals unsuspended.

But of course the answer will always be it was the local MSR team who messed up and not Handcock. Quite the opposite to how when questioned on other matters they state that MSR is a completely OWNED subsidiary of MRC.
They line they walk is certainly variable and that legal counsel better start packing his bags for Pretoria.

A one liner by the deadline of July 13 was all that was required.
Instead you have senior staff spending time Bollywooding up their hair for photo shoots in magazine articles.

Lack of focus

It seems there is no record of this court ordered submission being done.
Ministry has no record of having had received any submission by the due date or the afforded grace period.

It does seem that the minister was rather onside at the beginning and all Hancock had to oversee was that the submission met the court ordered deadline of July 13 and if not, then at least the 10 day grace period thereafter. They literally just had essentially put a one liner so to speak along the lines of: dear minister, we wish to give an opportunity motivate you to do an SEA though we believe that we are above and beyond compliant in all environmental matters and will keep you advised of any changes".

The minister could have then said there was no need for an SEA and she would keep onto of communications. It was that simple.

Instead now he, specifically Hancock, has allowed it to become a breach of a court order, which was one of the conditions that the previous section 93 notices were lifted, the new licenses were issued and the 2 appeals by CER were stayed.
As such, who knows what is now going on post deadline.

One can assume that if they are engaging with CER, outside of teh court ordered deadline, that CER has the upper hand and at anytime can simply lodge their writ against MSR for contempt of court which would result in the above items being undone and CER appeals unsuspended.

But of course the answer will always be it was the local MSR team who messed up and not Handcock. Quite the opposite to how when questioned on other matters they state that MSR is a completely OWNED subsidiary of MRC.
They line they walk is certainly variable and that legal counsel better start packing his bags for Pretoria.

A one liner by the deadline of July 13 was all that was required.
Instead you have senior staff spending time Bollywooding up their hair for photo shoots in magazine articles.

Lack of focus

It seems there is no record or announcement of the court ordered submission for SEA being done by the due date
Ministry has stated in phone call that they have no record of having had received any submission by the due date or the afforded grace period.

It does seem that the minister was rather onside at the beginning and all in house legal counsel Hancock had to do was oversee that the submission met the court ordered deadline of July 13 and if not, then at least the 10 day grace period thereafter. They literally just had essentially put a one liner so to speak along the lines of: "Dear minister, we wish to take this opportunity to motivate you to do an SEA though we believe that we are above and beyond compliant in all environmental matters and will keep you advised of any changes".

The minister could have then taken a non intrusive approach and said there was no need for an SEA as she was satisfactorily informed by MSR and she would keep on top of communications going forwards". It was that simple.

Instead now, MRC/MSR, specifically under the guidance of in house legal counsel Handcock, has apparently allowed it to eventuate into a breach of the court order, which in itself was one of the principal conditions that: A) the previous section 93 notices were lifted, B) the new licenses were issued and C) the 2 appeals by CER were stayed.
As such, who knows what is now going on post deadline if we are not informed and updated?

One can assume that if they are engaging with CER, post the court ordered deadline, that CER has the upper hand and at anytime can simply exercise their right (as a party to the action) to lodge their writ against MSR for contempt of court, which would result in the above items A,B & C being undone inclusive of the 2 x CER appeals being unsuspended.

No doubt the defensive answer post event will typically always be it was the local MSR team who messed up and it was not in fact the repressibility of in house legal counsel Handcock who's position would typically be responsible for the oversight of such matters. This is quite the opposite perspective that they have previously presented when questioned on other matters in which cases they have contrarily statedthat MSR is a completely OWNED subsidiary of MRC and that they have agreements in place that ensure MRC has full control of MSR matters
.
They line they walk is certainly variable according to their narrative at a given time and given how serious this could all rapidly become, it may be prudent that legal counsel Handcock better start heading towards Pretoria to be placed as best as possible to offer his skills and receive rebuttal first and from those on the ground there.

The whole risk profile could have been avoided with essentially a one liner by the deadline of July 13, the court ordered deadline. Which is of public record.
Instead you have senior staff of MRC spending time Bollywooding up their hair for photo shoots in magazine articles instead of focusing on managing risk.

There seems to be a clear lack of focus coupled with a lack of suitable skill sets.