R v.

Inspectorate of Pollution ex parte Greenpeace [1994] 4 All ER 329

Facts- The environmental pressure group, Greenpeace, sought to bring judicial review
proceedings against the decision of the Inspectorate of Pollution to authorise the discharge of
radioactive waste from the Thorp nuclear plant in Cumbria. Greenpeace had 2500 members
or supporters living in the area likely to be affected by the decision.

It was held that the court should take into account the nature of the applicant-

i. Its interests in the issues raised;

ii. The remedy it sought to achieve; and
iii. The nature of the relief sought.

Greenpeace was a responsible organization with an established reputation for its interest in
environmental matters and some of its members, who would have had standing in their own
right, lived in the area affected.

R v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Ex p. World

Development Movement Ltd [1995] 1 W.L.R. 386

Facts- An organization obtained financial aid from the Secretary of State to construct a
hydro-electric power station on the Pergau river in Malaysia despite concerns that this was
not a good use of the overseas aid budget as the project was uneconomic and not a sound
development project. The World Development Movement, an anti-poverty campaign group,
sought judicial review of the decision to grant aid for the project. The issue was whether the
group had standing to challenge the decision.

It was held that the challenge was a meritorious one that ought to be heard by the courts and
that this was to be treated as an important factor when considering whether a group had
standing. Further factors that supported a finding that the group had sufficient interest to
mount a challenge were the likely absence of any other challenger and the prominent role of
the group in terms of the knowledge, expertise and resources to mount a challenge.

1|Page
Wheeler v Leicester City Council,

Facts- 3 members of Leicester Rugby Club were chosen by the England Rugby Football
Union to go on tour to South Africa. The Council was against this due to the apartheid period
at the time.

Questions that the council put to the club?

1. Does the club support the government opposition to the tour?
2. Does the club agree that the tour is an insult to the a large portion of the Leicester
population?
3. Will the club press the RFU to call off the tour?
4. Will the club press the players to pull out of the tour?

For what reason did the club state that players had an individual choice as to when and
where to play?

Because they were amateur sportsmen.

The 3 players took part in the tour and so the council banned the club from using the
recreation ground for 12 months.

What were the legal reasons behind the council banning the club?

The council were under a duty to promote good race relations under the s.71 Race Relations
Act 1976.

However, the council had a duty under the Open Spaces Act 1906 to promote what?

To promote use of the rugby pitch for the purpose of sport and recreation.

On the ground of illegality, what did the judges in the CA and HL say?

CA - Ackner LJ believed that the council acted lawfully; when exercising their discretionary
powers in relation to the recreation ground, they had regard for the purposes expressed in s.71
Race Relations Act 1976.

HL - Lord Templeman believed that the decision was unlawful as the club did no wrong. The
council effectively used their powers to punish the club. The club had no say in whether the
players could go or not, because they were amateur players.

2|Page
Lord Roskill said that the council had gone against their duties imposed by the Open Spaces
Act 1906. Also, the club had done everything it could to bring the council's views to the
RFU. The requirement that the club make a public statement in terms dictated by the council
and exert pressure on club members was oppressive.

On the ground of irrationality, what did the judges in CA and HL say?

CA - Browne Wilkinson LJ believed that it was irrational to sanction the club just because
they had a different view.

HL - Lord Roskill felt that the club had done nothing wrong and it was unreasonable for the
council to expect the club to comply with its views. Therefore, the ban was therefore one
which no reasonable local authority could have imposed.

On the ground of procedural impropriety, what did the judges in the CA and HL say?

CA - Browne-Wilkinson LJ insisted that the council exceeded its use of discretionary powers

HL - All the Lords believed that the club was treated unfairly when they were expected to
answer affirmatively to the questions of the council or they would be suspended. This was
unfair use of the councils statutory powers.

Decision of CA- Held that the council was entitled to have regard to the need to promote
good race relations as expressed in s.71 Race Relations Act 1976.

Decision of HL- Held, in the absence of any improper conduct by the club, punishing the club
was unreasonable and a breach of the Councils policy to act fairly. Therefore, the actions of
the council amounted to procedural impropriety and a misuse of its statutory powers.

Court of Appeal decision, R (McClure and Moos) v Commissioner of Police of the

Metropolis [2012] EWCA Civ 12

Facts- 2 demonstrations against the G20 summit had taken place at the same time in central
London. The 1st one was outside Bank of England and it became violent so police cordoned
them off. The 2nd one, 1/4 mile away, was peaceful. The police decided to cordon off the 2nd
one due to the fact that they reasonably apprehended an imminent breach of peace when they
dispersed the 1st one, because they thought people from the 1st one would get involved in the
2nd one. They pushed the 2nd protest north.

3|Page
Issues-

 Whether an imminent breach of peace at the 2nd demonstration was reasonable.

 Whether the decision to push north was reasonable and proportionate.
It was held-
1. The police were justified in apprehending an imminent breach of the peace.
2. The decision to contain a crowd whose actions alone were not justifiable of being
contained, was acceptable due to the fact that it was the least intrusive way of
preventing an imminent breach of the peace.
3. The decision to push north was justifiable.

R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001]

Facts- Daly, a long term prisoner, appealed against the lawfulness of a new blanket policy
which the Home Sec brought in 1995, which authorised cell searches and in particular
required letters and documents between prisoners and their legal advisors to be examined
without the prisoner being present.

What did the searching of documents without the prisoners presence violate?

It was submitted that the examination of legal correspondence in a prisoner's absence was not
authorised by the s.47(1) Prison Act 1952 and constituted a breach of the Human Rights Act
1998 Sch.1 Part I Art.8(1).

What were the reasons behind the cell search policy?

In 1994, 6 A category prisoners escaped, because they had been able to gather a mass of
illicit property and equipment undetected.

To discourage prisoners from using intimidatory tactics to prevent officers carrying out a full
search of possessions.

Decision-

the blanket policy infringed Daly's common law right to legal professional privilege.

The infringement was greater than could be shown to be justified and no support for the
intrusion could be found in either s.47(1) of the 1952 Act or in the 1998 Act.

The Home Sec had no power to implement the policy in its present form. Hence, it was
illegal, irrational and not proportionate.

4|Page