Lecture notes Constitutional and Administrative Law (LW1120)

Constitutional and Administrative Law lecture 28.01.19 (lecture 7)


Duty to give reasons:

 To what extent are public authorities required to give reasons for their decisions?
 No general duty in English law/statute/common law to give reasons WITH exceptions
 Not part of natural justice
 Why does UK have this approach?-not part of natural justice; archaic concept; courts don’t
HAVE TO give reasons for decisions so wouldn’t be right to impose this on public bodies
 Tribunals and Enquiries Act (limited)
 Overlaps with Notice of Charge; not an easy distinction (notice of charge=fundamentals to
allow you to respond, whereas giving reasons is ultimate decision with reasons explaining
why they arrived to that decision)
 What does common law say?
 PadfieldLord Reid Judgment. Gives hope for duty to give reasons. How milk is
produced and priced. At the time there was no free market/production of dairy so
farmers had to gather milk and sell it to the Milk Marketing Board who decided
price; farmers in South East of England felt they should’ve been paid more.
Legislation behind Milk Marketing Board; if you have a complaint should make this
complain to the Independent Complaints Committee; but to get this to the
Committee, it has to be referred by a Minister (a Secretary of State); farmers in
South East request a complaint but Minister refuses and doesn’t refer it on (reason-
knows Independent Committee wouldn’t allow it but doesn’t tell farmers why); they
take it to court and it goes all the way up to HoL’s; barrister for Secretary of State
says it was obvious why he did this; argued it was right of him to do so BUT courts
didn’t like this argument; and they inferred this to saying there were no good
reasons; no reasons suggests there aren’t any good reasons; indirect duty to give
reasons.
 Lonrho v Secretary of State for Trade and IndustryHarrods (big department store);
who was going to buy it issue (bidding); good business and significant for the two
businessmen; two businesses trying to take over another business causes
competition issues; legislation-if Secretary of State thinks matter needs to be
investigated, they refer it to the Competition Authorities; applied to judicial review-
not being given reasons to why one parties bid needed inspection by C authorities;
HoL’sdespite Padfield; argued it was fine and that they weren’t going to look
behind the reasons; courts didn’t want to intervene in sensitive and political
decisions
 Exceptions:
 R v Civil Service Appeal Board ex p Cunninghamprison officer dismissed from job;
issue to do with redundancy payment (compensation-approx.. £6000); if he had an
ordinary employment contract would’ve got double the amount; takes this to
tribunal where he argued there was no reasons as to why figure was £6000 with no
reasons; no duty to give reasons and makes it’s way to CA and they said reasons
should be given since it’s an odd decision and to save the face of the public body;
should’ve been backed up by decisions; wasn’t clear that this decision was lawful
STRANGE DECISION AND IT DIDN’T MAKE SENSE
 Doody v Home SecretaryMandatory life sentence of murder (minimum period
they have to spend) and this is decided by Home Secretary; they were trying to
increase the time spent in prison with no reasons being given; spending longer than
previous prisoners with no reasons as to why; courts carves out an exception for