Evans [2015]
Facts: The Freedom of Information Act 2000 s.53 did not entitle an accountable person to issue a certificate to override a court's decision that information should be disclosed simply because he disagreed with its conclusion. Accordingly, the Attorney General had not been entitled to issue a s.53 certificate to override an Upper Tribunal decision that communications between the Prince of Wales and government departments should be disclosed.The Attorney General appealed against a decision ([2014] EWCA Civ 254, [2014] Q.B. 855) quashing a certificate he had issued under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 s.53 to override an Upper Tribunal decision that communications between the Prince of Wales and government departments should be disclosed. The government had refused a journalist's request to disclose the information; the Information Commissioner had upheld that refusal. The Upper Tribunal ruled that some communications should be disclosed. As an "accountable person" within s.53(8), the Attorney General issued a certificate under s.53(2) on the basis of constitutional conventions concerning the Prince's role as future King. The Court of Appeal upheld the journalist's application for judicial review of the certificate on the basis that:
i) the Attorney's reasons were not capable of constituting "reasonable grounds" within s.53(2);
ii) because the correspondence concerned environmental issues, the certificate was incompatible with Directive 2003/4 on access to environmental information.
Held: Appeal Dismissed.
Majority (Lord Neuberger) : Principal of legality + limit the legal effect of the provisions to a very significant way. + P can achieve a breach of RoL when language used is “crystal clear”. + AG’s veto was a breach of the RoL (not express and this is more implicit).
Minority (Lord Hughes & Lord Wilson) : Majority decision is a breach of RoL - it decided to X adhere to the literal reading of statute - a denial of legality itself.