R (on the application of Evans) v Attorney General
[2015] UKSC 21
Supreme Court
Facts:
E submitted a Freedom of Information request for communications between the Prince of Wales and several governmental departments. The departments refused to comply.
A tribunal issued an order for the departments to comply, but the AG issued a certificate to deny the order.
After E won at appeal, the AG then appealed after the Court of Appeal decided that the office could not issue a certificate to deny a Freedom of Information request.
Legal Facts / Procedural History:
Upper Tribunal
Divisional Court
Court of Appeal
Legal Issues:
Whether a journalist can request the disclosure of communications between the Prince of Wales and government departments through a Freedom of Information request.
Whether the AG’s certificate to deny the request was lawful on 'reasonable grounds'.
Whether the AG’s certificate extends to include any ‘non-environmental’ information.
Appellant (AG) Arguments:
Correspondence between Prince Charles and the government would allow him to prepare for the types of duties he will have when he assumes to the throne. Confidentiality is important when discussing government policy.
The letters contained personal views, which should not be released to the public, as it would breach the prince’s data protection rights.
Respondent (Evans) Arguments:
The statutory provision that entitles the AG to issue a certificate against a Freedom of Information request undermines the constitutional principle that the executive cannot overrule the judiciary. Therefore, the certificate is invalid.
The rule of law establishes that a court can review the decisions and actions of the executive.
The certificate is invalid because EU Directive prevents a member of the executive to override the decision of a judicial tribunal order.
'Reasonable grounds' to issue the certificate cannot be a differing view than the courts.
Judgement (Lord Neuberger PSC, Lady Hale DPSC, Lord Mance JSC, Lord Kerr JSC, Lord Wilson JSC, Lord Reed JSC and Lord Hughes JSC):
Appeal dismissed.
Lord Neuberger PSC (Lord Kerr JSC and Lord Reed JSC Agree):
It would have been proper procedure that the government department appealed against the order of disclosure, rather than issuing the certificate, unless there were significant grounds to issue it.
If there are grounds to appeal the tribunal, the AG should not issue a certificate. In this context, it is not reasonable for the AG to issue the certificate because they have a differing view to the courts.
Furthermore, Parliament didn’t make it 'crystal clear' that the constitutional principle that the executive cannot overrule the judicial did not apply. It is therefore the role of court to ensure the executive is not overstepping its bounds.
Lord Mance JSC (Lady Hale Agrees):
The courts must apply an objective standard of whether AG was acting reasonably. The tribunal heard and cross-examined evidence; the AG did not.
The communications were not necessary for Charles to become king. It is unclear why the communications of a public figure that will influence public action should be kept secret – if there is 'nothing improper', there is nothing to fear.
Communications are not excepted from the duty to disclose.
Lord Hughes JSC (dissenting in part):
The AG acted on reasonable grounds and did not act unlawfully, but on public interest.
The statute under which the AG acted under was clear.
It is integral to the rule of law that the courts examine Parliament's intention, not that the courts always prevail. He notes that the certificate still subject to judicial review but would allow the appeal.
Lord Wilson JSC (dissenting):
Believes the Court of Appeal effectively rewrote the statute by misinterpreting it. In was in the public interest for the AG to form reasonable grounds for the certificate. Wilson JSC would allow the appeal.
Comments