Jefferies & Ors, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2018] EWHC 3239 (Admin) (29 November 2018)

Jefferies & Ors, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2018] EWHC 3239 (Admin) (29 November 2018)

No clear, unambiguous, or unqualified assurance was given by the Prime Minister at the private meeting on 21 November 2012 that Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry would proceed. The meeting was expressly private and off the record, with statements made on the basis that 'what is said in this room stays in this room.' In this context, no legitimate expectation enforceable in law arose. Even if an expectation had arisen, the context was macro-political and involved a broad, indeterminate class, further precluding legal enforceability. The claim was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 3239 (Admin)
Parties
Claimants: Christopher Jefferies, Gerry McCann, Kate McCann, Jacqui Hames; First Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Legitimate Expectation, Judicial Review, Government Promises, Public Inquiries
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Public Law Legitimate Expectation Judicial Review Government Promises Public Inquiries

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Jefferies, Gerry McCann, Kate McCann, Jacqui Hames

Claimants

Secretary of State for the Home Department

First Defendant

Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements made by the Prime Minister at a private meeting on 21 November 2012 gave rise to a legitimate expectation in law that Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry would proceed.
  2. 2 Whether the government’s decision to terminate Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry failed to take into account a material consideration, namely a legitimate expectation.

Ratio Decidendi

No clear, unambiguous, or unqualified assurance was given by the Prime Minister at the private meeting on 21 November 2012 that Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry would proceed. The meeting was expressly private and off the record, with statements made on the basis that 'what is said in this room stays in this room.' In this context, no legitimate expectation enforceable in law arose. Even if an expectation had arisen, the context was macro-political and involved a broad, indeterminate class, further precluding legal enforceability. The claim was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim for judicial review is dismissed.