Tutoiral One: UV: Cornerhouse v Evans

Question 1

Material Facts of CornerHouse

Answer 1

Director of Serious Fraud Office stopped investigation when threats from Saudia Arabia made. Gov advised him to stop. Put national security first and stopped investigation. Corner house said illegal decision as due to threat
Said Director of SFO v broad discretion and as such national security was relevant consideration and lawful for Director to defer to Gov on nature of the risk

Question 2

Material Facts for Evans

Answer 2

Wanted disclosure of Gov letters with the Prince of Wales under the freedom on information act.
Tribunal ordered disclosure, attorney General made certificate to set aside decision.
Supreme Court: was he allowed to make certificate in regards to matter of EU environmental law and if certificate legal or poe exercised legally.

Question 3

Principal Legal Arguments in Corner House

Answer 3

• not surrendering was a risk to National Security
• giving into demands was a breach of the rule of law which required them to investigate corruption. Did not give enough consideration to relevance of rule of law here.
• Divisional Court: said not enough done to seek other remedy. But Bingham said Director of SFO didn’t have access to diplomatic means.
• Took into account irrelevant considerations and misdirected himself:
• Shawcross exercise: shouldn’t have suggested presence on course of action
• Director: threat wasn’t made at him, so only took account did not act upon it.

Question 4

Arguments in Evans

Answer 4

attorney General: in his discretion to issue the certificate.
Needed reasonable grounds and had them
Power was made for a reason, explicit power from Parliament.
Evans: certificate not usable in conjunction with EU Directive 2003. Did not have reasonable grounds for setting aside decision.

Question 5

Differences between power exerted in Corner House and Evans?

Answer 5

• both used power to make exception in straight forward rule.
• in Cornerhouse there were solid, reasoned and significant reasons for using discretion. Had consulted experts and relied on opinions.
  Evans: no consultation, no advice and no reasoned argument backing it up - appeared to be a personal whim.

Also one simple stopped own actions other overrode others decisions - more serious constitutional principles.

Question 6

Main issues House of Lords considered coming to their decision in Corner House?

Answer 6

1) was the threat significant enough: had to follow expert opinion of others and they said yes.
2) Was the Director in compliance with OECD: no other means to seek a solution, in his scope of discretion to balance public interest.

Question 7

Main issues Supreme Court considered in coming to their decision in Evans?

Answer 7

• not entitled to use certificate so invalid
• certificate invalid to EU direct
• Parliamentary Sov
• How much discretion do courts have at examining statutes?
• Separation of Powers: exec shouldn’t be able to set aside decision of any court
• Must be v clear wording of statue to go against rule of law, not present here.
• Others sad open for him to disagree but that he had to give reasons

Question 8

TRUSTEES OF THE HARBOUR OF DUNDEE

Answer 8

Where use extra to statute is incidental (e.g. spare equipment, needed to fund it) then may be lawful despite not being authorised by the statute, would have to be proven to be necessary to achieve the aim however.

Question 9

—— Lord Brightman in Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v Evans (1982)

Answer 9

“Judicial review is concerned not with the decision but with the merits of the decision making process”