The applicants sought an order that the government enquiries into the foot and mouth outbreak should be held in public. They argued that the need to re-establish public faith made a decision not to hold the enquiries in public irrational, and that a failure to hold the enquiry in public infringed the applicant’s human rights.
Held: The distinction between freedom of expression, and of access to information was central. Art 10 created no obligation to provide a public forum for discussion of issues. On the question of whether there is a presumption that an inquiry would be held in public (Wagstaff), this must be approached on a case by case basis with no presumption either way.
Judges:
Lord Justice Simon Brown and Mr Justice Scott Baker
Citations:
Times 28-Mar-2002, Gazette 23-May-2002, [2002] EWHC 371 (Admin), [2003] QB 794, [2002] 3 WLR 704
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 10
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Health, Ex Parte Wagstaff etc QBD 31-Aug-2000
The Secretary of State announced a public enquiry into the Shipman case. He did not say whether it would be a public enquiry. The bereaved families and media wanted it to be public, and contended that it had been invalidly constituted, that an . .
Cited by:
Cited – Kennedy v The Charity Commission SC 26-Mar-2014
The claimant journalist sought disclosure of papers acquired by the respondent in its conduct of enquiries into the charitable Mariam appeal. The Commission referred to an absolute exemption under section 32(2) of the 2000 Act, saying that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Administrative, Agriculture, Information, Judicial Review, Media
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168069