Royal Dutch Shell Plc  .com Rotating Header Image

Email from Alfred Donovan to Gavin White, Shell International Limited

Modified 23 April 2018: Relevant Shell executives name changed to initials only “AJL”)



From: Alfred Donovan <[email protected]>
Date: 13 January 2010 22:29:17 GMT
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: SAR Request From Alfred Donovan Under Section 7 (1) of the Data Protection Act


Mr. Gavin White
Company Secretarial Department
Shell International Limited

Dear Mr. White

Section 7 (1) of the Data Protection Act

I formally request that you please send me the information to which I am entitled to under section 7 (1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 in relation to my dealings with Shell. This is to include all documents, reports, communications, correspondence, transcripts and any other information held by Shell, which contain my name, or information, which relates to me.

In this connection, I have supplied some background information, which will hopefully assist in locating relevant information. To save constantly repeating the formal request and the range of documents, reports etc set out in the above paragraph, please take it that the specified range of information automatically applies, including whenever I use the term: “I request all relevant information”.

If you need further information from me, or a fee, please let me know as soon as possible.

If you do not normally handle these requests for your organisation, please pass this email to your Data Protection Officer or other appropriate officer.

I have set out below a revised version of the Background Information supplied to Shell by my son John, when he lodged a SAR request with Shell last September. Shell purportedly supplied him with all information up to 22 October 2009.

This application covers all relevant information held by Shell right up to the date when you receive my cheque for my current application, assuming that you ask for payment. In other words, all past information AND information generated on or after 22 October 2009. This includes Shell’s contact with the media including BBC Essex and The Guardian newspaper. Also all documents and communications arising from our recent distribution of leaflets at Shell Centre and the alleged intimidation of our leaflet distributors by Shell security guards. Also any relevant Shell correspondence with Earley householders in relation to the former Shell terminal at Earley in Reading.

I also request any communications, and/or documents relating to Shell Corporate Affairs Security (CAS) and any other information relating to Shell so-called “invisible” investigations/spying carried out in connection with “Donovan” or the Donovan website The same applies to Shell contact with any external resources. I request all relevant information.

Can you please ensure that I can identity where Shell has redacted information, as this is impossible to do on many documents you have supplied to my son? Surely there should always be heavy black lines denoting redaction, not just white spaces. Without such indication, it is sometimes impossible to identify for certain when redaction has taken place, for example at the end of a line of print (where the print margins are not justified) or at the end of a sentence, if there are just blank spaces indistinguishable from the non printed background of the document.

Background Information

My former company Don Marketing brought a series of High Court actions against Shell UK Limited between 1994 and 1996 alleging breach of contract and breach of confidence.  I also personally brought High Court proceedings for libel against Shell UK Limited under action  1995 No. D328, which Shell secretly settled as part of the Deed dated 6 July 1995.  I request all relevant information.

With regard to the Shell SMART High Court action, which my son John Donovan brought against Shell in or around 1998, Shell brought a counter-claim against me personally. This was withdrawn by Shell as part of a secret settlement by Shell of the SMART litigation which included the release of a press statement by Shell, which deliberately gave a false account of the basis on which the litigation was concluded. The full terms were not disclosed even to the trial Judge, the late Mr Justice Laddie. I understand that the compromise settlement was personally authorized by Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, the then Group Chairman of the Royal Dutch Shell Group. I request all relevant information involving Sir Mark, Shell UK Limited and DJ Freeman, the solicitors retained by Shell that put forward two compromise settlement proposals directly to me, the first of which I rejected and the second, which I accepted.

Since 2001, my son John and/or me have been in communication from time to time with Shell legal departments and Shell management on various matters arising from the litigation and from the operation of Shell related websites owned by us. I request all relevant information. In this regard, please note that I have corresponded directly with management, officials and in-house lawyers at various companies within the Royal Dutch Shell Group including Shell UK Limited, The “Shell” Transport and Trading Company Plc , Royal Dutch Petroleum Company, Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, Shell Exploration & Production and Royal Dutch Shell Plc. I request all relevant information.

Most of the correspondence with Shell lawyers has been with Mr Richard Wiseman and to a lesser extent, Mr Michiel Brandjes. I am also seeking copies of internal correspondence between Shell employees/in-house lawyers and correspondence by Shell with external parties, including retained UK solicitors Mackrell Turner Garrett, DJ Freeman and Simmons and Simmons, Sakhalin Energy Investment Company, journalists, news publishers and our website hosting companies MyHosting in Canada and in the USA, who both received “cease and desist letters” from Shell, probably from Shell International, which resulted in the brief closure of our website. Both hosting companies initially refused to disclose the name of the company making threats against them. I request all relevant information.

I am aware that Shell legal divisions may have also sent communications about me to other third parties including, for example, the Legal Aid Board, during 1998/99 . I am also aware of correspondence about me involving management of Shell Group companies including Mark Moody-Stuart. Shell UK Media Relations has issued  press statements about me, and distributed information about me to Shell employees. I request all relevant historic, subsequent and current information.

Shell UK legal director Mr Richard Wiseman was interviewed on 10 September 1998 about my son and me by Mr Simon Rines, a journalist representing the Guardian newspaper. Since Shell tape-recorded the interview, I assume that a transcript exists.  I am particularly interested in Shell internal and external correspondence (including with DJ Freeman) relating to the use of private investigation/enquiry agents which Shell has admitted using and any related Shell correspondence with Hakluyt & Company Limited – the commercial spying organisation in which titled Shell Transport directors/shareholders Sir Peter Holmes and Sir William Purves were directors/shareholders. I request all relevant information. Please include any correspondence between Shell and the Suffolk Constabulary during the related Police investigations in which Shell did not disclose its close association with Hakluyt which engaged on behalf of Shell in exactly the kind of underhand activities used against us.

Mr Wiseman also confirmed that Shell carried out a related internal investigation. I request all relevant information.

In or around 2002, Mr Wiseman had contact with Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, AJL, Phillip Watts, Clive Mather and others in relation to a manuscript authored by me. The manuscript was circulated by Mr Wiseman which contained allegations against Shell and the Judge for the SMART trial, Mr Justice Laddie. In this connection, I request all relevant information involving Mr Wiseman and Mr Justice Laddie, or with Sir Hugh Laddie QC as he was known after his resignation as a Judge (by coincidence or otherwise) following a complaint made by me to Lord Falconer, the then Lord Chancellor. The complaint was in regard to  events which took place in the trial and the blatant open bias in favour of Shell displayed by the Judge.

The judge failed to disclose potential conflicts of interest in respect of his commercial connection with Tom Moody-Stuart, the IP barrister son of Sir Mark and the Judges decades long friendship with Tony Willoughby, the founder of an IP firm which had Shell as a long term client.  The Moody-Stuart name was raised during the trial when unusual correspondence between my father and Judy Moody-Stuart, the wife of Mark Moody-Stuart, was handed to the Judge. The correspondence was initiated by Judy Moody-Stuart. I request all relevant information regarding Shell contact with the Mr Justice Laddie or any other party in relation to the trial, the Moody-Stuart correspondence, or the manuscript. This includes DJ Freeman and Geoffrey Hobbs QC.

Sir Hugh Laddie QC joined Willoughby & Company after he resigned as a Judge, ending his career working for a firm, which had Shell as a client. All of my concerns over these matters were put into the public domain years before the tragic demise of Professor Sir Hugh Laddie QC.

I also seek all relevant correspondence related to the related breach by Richard Wiseman in or around August 2001 of the 1999 “peace treaty” which I signed.

In 2005, Shell brought WIPO proceedings against me personally in an attempt to seize my domain name I am aware that the advice of Richard Wiseman was obtained in regard to the WIPO proceedings, which as far as I know, do not qualify as litigation.  I request all relevant information.

In response to our SAR application in 2007, Shell supplied its correspondence with solicitors acting for former Shell International HSE Group Auditor Bill Campbell, when an unsuccessful attempt was made to persuade him not to have contact with us. I request all relevant information, past or subsequent.

The first SAR application generated Shell internal correspondence revealing that a crisis reaction team had been set up to counter our website activities. The content of one email was decidedly hostile towards us. Please supply any further correspondence or documents relating to the same or any subsequent team, third party, or person, involved in any such activities on behalf of Shell, including “CAS” as indicated above.   In this connection I would like sight of any information naming or referring to me in the possession or control of Shell Global Security. Please also address this request to Ian Forbes McCredie OBE, the former British Secret Service officer who is head of Shell Global Security and Richard T. Garcia, the former senior FBI official of 25 years standing, who is Global Security Advisor for Shell International. I request all relevant information.

Please also supply any Shell correspondence with Saudi Aramco, and/or the Saudi Arabia government/regime, and/or Motiva Enterprises, in which I am referred to or named. I request all relevant information.

Since July 1999, the end of the last High Court action, there has been no court proceedings brought by any Shell company against me, or by me, against any Shell company. Hence there are no such proceedings in progress.  The last such High Court litigation was over a decade ago. This means that no correspondence or documents are protected by legal privilege.

I note from the Shell internal documents supplied to my son that Shell has engaged in some wishful thinking regarding my age (I am now almost 93). Unfortunately for Shell, I am still very much alive and kicking.

Best Regards
Alfred Donovan and its sister non-profit websites,,,,,, and are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia feature.

0 Comments on “Email from Alfred Donovan to Gavin White, Shell International Limited”

Leave a Comment

Comment Rules

  • Please show respect to the opinions of others no matter how seemingly far-fetched.
  • Abusive, foul language, and/or divisive comments may be deleted without notice.
  • Each blog member is allowed limited comments, as displayed above the comment box.
  • Comments must be limited to the number of words displayed above the comment box.
  • Please limit one comment after any comment posted per post.

%d bloggers like this: