Mr Evans had sought release under the 2000 Act of leers from the Prince of Wales to variou government ministers. The Upper Tribunal had allowed his appeal aganst refusal, but the Attorney had then issued a certificate that in his opinion, the information had been properly withheld. Mr Evans now appealed against refusal of judicial review of the certificate.
Held: The appeal succeeded. (i) the reasons given by the Attorney General were not capable of constituting ‘reasonable grounds’ within the meaning of section 53(2) of the FOIA 2000, and (ii) because the advocacy correspondence was concerned with environmental issues, the Certificate was incompatible with both Council Directive 2003/4/EC and article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Lord Dyson MR, Richards, Pitchford LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 253, [2014] Env LR 26, [2014] 3 All ER 682, [2014] 3 CMLR 12, [2014] 1 QB 855, [2014] WLR(D) 124, [2014] HRLR 12, [2014] 2 WLR 1334
Bailii, WLRD
Freedom of Information Act 2000 53(2), Council Directive 2003/4/EC, Charter of Fundamental Rights of te European Union 47, The Environmental Information Regulations 2004
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Evans, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Attorney General and Another Admn 9-Jul-2013
The claimant had requested disclosure of correspondence between Prince Charles and assorted government departments. It had been refused, the Attorney General issuing a certificate under section 53(2) after the Upper tribunal had allowed the . .
See Also – Evans v Information Commissioner UTAA 18-Sep-2012
The claimant journalist had requested copies of correspondence between Prince Charles and assorted public bodies.
Held: ‘The Upper Tribunal allows the appeals by Mr Evans. A further decision identifying information to be disclosed to Mr Evans, . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Evans and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Attorney General SC 26-Mar-2015
The Attorney General appealed against a decision for the release under the Act and Regulations of letters from HRH The Prince of Wales to various ministers and government departments.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority). The A-G had not been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Information, Litigation Practice, European, Constitutional, Human Rights, Environment
Updated: 01 December 2021; Ref: scu.522384