“It has long been the practice that a party is entitled to seal up or cover up parts of a document which he claims to be irrelevant … … In my view, the test for whether on discovery part of a document can be withheld on grounds of irrelevance is simply whether that part is irrelevant. … There is no additional requirement that the part must deal with an entirely different subject matter than the rest. The Peruvian Guano test must be applied to the information contained in the covered-up part of the document, regardless of its physical or grammatical relationship to the rest. Relevant and irrelevant information may, as in this case, be contained in the same sentence. Provided that the irrelevant part can be covered without destroying the sense of the rest or making it misleading, a party is permitted to do so.”
“… the position is quite different if and when the applicant can satisfy a judge of the public law court that the facts disclosed by her are sufficient to entitle her to apply for judicial review of the decision. Then it becomes the duty of the respondent to make full and fair disclosure. Notwithstanding that the courts have for centuries exercised a limited supervisory jurisdiction by means of the prerogative writs, the wider remedy of judicial review and the evolution of what is, in effect, a specialist administrative or public law court is a post-war development. This development has created a new relationship between the courts and those who derive their authority from the public law, one of partnership based on a common aim, namely the maintenance of the highest standards of public administration. With very few exceptions, all public authorities conscientiously seek to discharge their duties strictly in accordance with public law and in general they succeed. But it must be recognised that complete success by all authorities at all times is a quite unattainable goal. Errors will occur despite the best of endeavours. The courts, for their part, must and do respect the fact that it is not for them to intervene in the administrative field, unless there is a reason to enquire whether a particular authority has been successful in its endeavours … In proceedings for judicial review, the applicant no doubt has an axe to grind. This should not be true of the authority. … Certainly it is for the applicant to satisfy the court of his entitlement to judicial review and it is for the respondent to resist his application, if he considers it to be unjustified. But it is a process which falls to be conducted with all the cards face upwards on the table and the vast majority of the cards will start in the authority’s hands.”
“15. More generally, redactions of the names of junior civil servants encourages open conversation within Government. Officials within the department conduct their work on the understanding and expectation that their names will not enter the public domain where this is not necessary. If junior civil servants fear their names will be disclosed in legal cases, it could have a chilling effect on government as they might be hesitant to express concerns or provide candid advice, which could hinder effective decision-making, or may widely discourage participation in public service.”
“I understand from Mr Andrews of the GLD [the solicitor with the conduct of this case for the Secretaries of State] that in recent years there have been examples of names and contact details of civil servants entering the public domain in association with contentious decision-making, resulting in their identification with the decision concerned with social and even main stream media. In one specific case, this involved the publishing of Mr Andrews’ correspondence on behalf of the GLD. This exposed Mr Andrews to offensive messages from members of the public. The civil servants involved in these examples, and Mr Andrews, a relatively junior GLD lawyer were simply carrying out their public duty pursuant to Government policy and were in no position publicly to defend themselves on their own account, which makes this particularly concerning. Whether or not the relevant individuals have the same expectation of privacy as junior civil servants, the incident is illustrative of the general risks.”
“52. Finally … the evidence put forward by the Claimants falls a long way short of demonstrating a credible risk that if the Claimants were named (and their addresses provided) that they would be exposed to some risk of harm. There might exist a very small number of people whose attitude towards MPs (and those who work for them) is so hostile that they might conceivably be moved to offer some threat of physical violence to them, but this risk is remote. The Claimants have not put forward any credible and specific evidence that one or more Claimants is at particular risk of any such threat. The civil justice system and the principles of open justice cannot be calibrated upon the risk of irrational actions of a handful of people engaging in what would be likely to amount to criminal behaviour. If it did, most litigation in this country would have to be conducted behind closed doors and under a cloak of almost total anonymity. As a democracy, we put our faith and confidence in our belief that people will abide by the law. We deal with those who do not, not by cowering in the shadows, but by taking action against them as and when required.”
“Finally, I understand Home Office and No10 are interested in removing the need for Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) to get licenses when providing accommodation for asylum seekers. [words redacted]. Landlords of larger HMOs – and in some areas, smaller HMOs – must be licensed and properties must meet standards. This is for safety reasons, for example there is a significantly higher risk of fire in HMOs. Home Office officials have suggested that this licensing system may be a barrier to housing asylum seekers and have requested exempting HMOs from licensing requirements. I have seen no evidence on how licensing is a barrier, and this move [words redacted] risks incentivising lower quality housing. [words redacted]”
“11. … political views expressed personally by the Secretary of State. They were expressed prior to the decision to pursue the policy made in January 2023, and long prior to the decision under challenge in March 2023. Such views are generally irrelevant to the decision under challenge. Once the decision to pursue the policy was taken, and bearing in mind the Draft Regulations were laid by the Junior Minister, with agreement from the Second Defendant personally, it is plain that Second Defendant considered the Draft Regulations “appropriate” (in the words of section 254(6) of the 2004 Act), whatever political views might have been expressed prior to the January 2023 political decision.”