The claimant appealed refusal of leave to bring judicial review of decisions to sell arms to the Israeli state. He lived in Palestine and said that Israel had destroyed his farm, and that licences broke the criteria under the 2002 Act. He said that public authorities are obliged at common law to publish reasons for administrative decisions whenever in all the circumstances the court is satisfied that the public interest so requires.
Held: The appeal failed. There was no public law duty of the sort asserted by the claimant. In the absence of some particular duty, there was no general duty to give reasons.
As to the Freedom of Information application, the 2000 Act may properly be seen as Parliament’s considered statutory framework for the disclosure of information held by public authorities, whose enactment militates against the incremental judicial perception of a common law duty to the same or any wider extent. Second, the fact that the complainant failed before the Information Commissioner goes nowhere to suggest that he or others ought to be enabled to succeed by other means. He failed because his application was outside the framework for disclosure enacted by Parliament.
 EWCA Civ 1311
Export Control Act 2002, Export of Goods, Transfer of Technology and Provision of Technical Assistance (Control) Order 2003, Freedom of Information Act 2000
England and Wales
Appeal from – Regina (Hasan) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Admn 19-Nov-2007
The claimant, a Palestinian, sought to challenge licences authorising the sale of military equipment to Israel which had been used in turn to destroy his farm, and infringe his human rights.
Held: Permission was refused. Though overt . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody and Others HL 25-Jun-1993
A mandatory lifer is to be permitted to suggest the period of actual sentence to be served. The Home Secretary must give reasons for refusing a lifer’s release. What fairness requires in any particular case is ‘essentially an intuitive judgment’, . .
Cited – Regina v London Borough of Islington, ex parte Hinds QBD 1995
The court considered a request to review a decision on unintentional homelessness under Part III of the Housing Act 1985.
Held: Public confidence in the decision making process is enhanced by knowledge that supportable reasons are given and . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Education, ex parte G 1995
The court was asked as to the need to give reasons in making a decision on a direction in a case of special educational needs. . .
Cited – Regina v Islington London Borough Council ex parte Hinds 1995
Cited – Regina v Mayor, Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London, ex parte Matson CA 18-Aug-1995
The court considered the need to give reasons for the election of Aldermen. . .
Cited – Regina v Aylesbury Vale District Council and Another; Ex Parte Chaplin and Others CA 19-Aug-1997
A Local Authority need not give its reasons for granting a planning application, even where a previous and identical application had been refused. . .
Cited – Wooder, Regina (on the Application of) v Feggetter and Dr Grah CA 25-Apr-2002
The patient challenged the treatment given to him against his will as a detained mental patient. He said the opinion of the second doctor as required under the Act, had not been put into writing.
Held: Following Wilkinson, which allowed a . .
Cited – Regina v Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council Ex Parte Grillo CA 13-Jun-1995
There was no general onus on Local Authorities to give reasons for their decisions in the absence of any explicit or particular duty. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Judicial Review, International, Information
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.278248