Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor v IAB & Ors, R (on the application of)
[2024] EWCA Civ 66
IAB & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor
17 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 2930 (Admin)
High Court
The government redacted parts of documents it gave to the court during a legal case. The judge said this was wrong because it hid information needed to understand the decision being challenged. The judge ruled the government must show good reason to hide information and give clear explanations for any redactions.
Key Facts
- •Claimants challenged the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities' decision to make the Houses in Multiple Occupation (Asylum-Seeker Accommodation)(England) Regulations 2023.
- •The Regulations aimed to increase asylum seeker accommodation and reduce hotel use.
- •Secretaries of State disclosed documents with redactions without explanation.
- •Redactions included names of civil servants outside the Senior Civil Service and other material.
- •The court considered the permissibility of redacting names and the application of legal professional privilege (LPP) and relevance to redactions.
Legal Principles
Duty of candour in judicial review proceedings requires public authorities to provide full and accurate explanations of relevant facts.
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs v Quark Fishing Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1409
Disclosure of documents in judicial review proceedings is necessary for a fair and just determination of the issues.
Tweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland [2007] 1 AC 650
Redaction of irrelevant parts of disclosed documents is permissible, but the test is simply whether the part is irrelevant, not whether it deals with an entirely different subject matter.
GE Capital Corporate Finance v The Bankers Trust [1995] 1 WLR 172
In judicial review, the obligation of candour requires a ‘cards face upwards’ approach; redaction should not impair the actuality or appearance of this.
R v Lancashire County Council Exp. Huddleston [1986] 2 All ER 941
Claims to legal professional privilege must be supported by evidence.
WH Holdings Ltd v E20 Stadium LLP [2018] EWCA Civ 2652
Cabinet collective responsibility does not automatically render all information in a letter to the Prime Minister confidential.
Paragraph 39
Outcomes
Refusal to permit routine redaction of names of civil servants outside the Senior Civil Service.
Such redaction hinders the court's understanding of the decision-making process and contradicts the duty of candour; there's no reasonable expectation of confidentiality for civil servants involved in public functions.
Refusal to maintain redaction based on legal professional privilege (LPP).
Insufficient evidence was provided to support the claim of LPP; the claim was not made good by the Note.
Refusal to maintain redaction based on relevance.
The redacted portion might contain relevant information showing the Secretary of State's doubts about the decision; any claim to confidentiality based on Cabinet collective responsibility failed.
Establishment of procedure for disclosing redacted documents.
Disclosing party must explain the reason for redaction at the point of disclosure to enable the receiving party to decide whether to apply for disclosure of the unredacted document.
Similar Cases
L1T FM Holdings UK Ltd, R (on the application of) & Anor v Secretary of State in the Cabinet Office
[2024] EWHC 386 (Admin)
C (A Child) (Care Proceedings – Publication of Judgment), Re
[2024] EWFC 228 (B)
A Teacher v Disclosure and Barring Service & Anor
[2023] UKUT 39 (AAC)
Equity Advisory Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 00784 (TC)