R (Persey) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Simon Brown,Mr Justice Scott Baker,LORD JUSTICE SIMON BROWN |
| Judgment Date | 15 March 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] EWHC 371 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No:CO/4530/2001 CO/4558/2001 4530/2001 4535/2001 4558/2001 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 15 March 2002 |
[2002] EWHC 371 (Admin)
Lord Justice Simon Brown and
Mr Justice Scott Baker
Case No:CO/4530/2001
CO/4535/2001
CO/4558/2001
4530/2001 4535/2001 4558/2001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL
Richard Lissack Esq, QC, Andrew Spink Esq & Robert Temmink Esq (instructed by Messrs Clarke Willmott & Clarke) for the Applicant Persey
Stephen Smith Esq, QC & David Warner Esq (instructed by Messrs Burges Salmon) for the Applicant Jackson
Richard Gordon Esq, QC, Nicholas Bowen Esq & Ms Galina Ward (instructed by Messrs Gabb & Co) for the Applicant Hindmarsh
Desmond Browne Esq, QC & Mark Warby Esq (instructed by Messrs Reynold Porter Chamberlain) for the Interveners
Lord Goldsmith QC, HM Attorney-General, Philip Sales Esq, Paul Harris Esq & Ms Kassie Smith (instructed by DEFRA) for the Respondent
The Interested Party did not appear and made only written submissions
1. The outbreak of foot and mouth disease (“FMD”) in Great Britain last year was a national disaster. Its impact upon large sections of the community was profound and devastating. Its consequences for livestock farming, for tourism and for many other areas of the rural economy can hardly be overstated. Some suffered financial ruin, others emotional trauma, a few, alas, were driven to suicide. Memories of the crisis remain fresh in all our minds, sharper and bitterer no doubt for those most directly affected. The unprecedented scale of the outbreak may be indicated by a few bare statistics. Anything between four and ten million animals were slaughtered. The cost to the nation has been variously estimated at between £4 billion and £10 billion, some would say much more. Livestock was killed on over 9,000 farms; 170,000 premises were subject to animal movement restrictions. From the outbreak of the epidemic in mid-February until the last confirmed case on 30 th September, FMD held the country in its grip.
2. The calls for a full-scale open public inquiry into the outbreak were, not surprisingly, widespread and impassioned. They were not, however, answered. Rather, following the Government's return to power in the June 2001 general election, a different decision was taken, the decision to set up three separate independent inquiries to receive evidence for the most part in private. Those three inquiries were announced on 9 th August 2001 and have been referred to respectively as the Lessons Learned Inquiry, the Scientific Inquiry, and the Policy Commission. That is the decision under challenge in these proceedings and at its heart lies the contention that nothing short of an open public inquiry would satisfy the requirements of the law.
3. The three groups of claimants are variously farmers, veterinary surgeons, hoteliers and others gravely affected by the outbreak. They are supported in their challenge by the Interveners who operate a number of national and regional television channels, radio services and newspapers, together representing a substantial part of the national media.
4. With that brief introduction, let me turn next to indicate something more of the three inquiries in fact set up.
Policy Commission
5. The terms of reference of this Inquiry were:
“To advise the Government on how we can create a sustainable, competitive and diverse farming and food sector which contributes to a thriving and sustainable rural economy, advances environmental, economic, health and animal welfare goals, and is consistent with the Government's aims for Common Agricultural Policy reform, enlargement of the EU and increased trade liberalisation.”
This Commission was chaired by Sir Donald Curry, CBE who sat with ten members. It has already reported.
Scientific Inquiry
6. This is a scientific review by a committee of the Royal Society under the chairmanship of Sir Brian Follett, FRS, whose terms of reference are (and I quote part only):
“To review scientific questions relating to the transmission, prevention and control of epidemic outbreaks of infectious disease in livestock in Great Britain and to make recommendations by Summer 2002.”
The Inquiry was instructed to “take close account of related inquiries, notably the administrative inquiry into the handling of the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak [the Lessons Learned Inquiry] and the policy commission on the future of agriculture”. At an early stage the Inquiry established three working groups respectively on i) vaccination; ii) surveillance and diagnostics; and iii) prediction, prevention and epidemiology. Initial views were sought by 12 th October and detailed evidence by 30 th November. Since then various open public meetings have been held.
Lessons Learned Inquiry
7. The terms of reference of this Inquiry are:
“To make recommendations for the way in which the Government should handle any future major animal disease outbreak, in the light of the lessons identified from the handling of the 2001 foot and mouth disease outbreak in Great Britain.”
It is being conducted by Dr Iain Anderson, CBE, working with a secretariat drawn from various Government departments. The Inquiry was to begin once it became clear that it would not distract from the eradication of FMD, and then aim to report within a further six months.
8. The main focus of the claimants’ challenge has been on the Lessons Learned Inquiry. It is this Inquiry, directed as it is to consider the handling of the 2001 outbreak so as to learn lessons for the future, which they contend as a matter of law must be held in public. Let me, therefore, at this stage flesh out its bare terms of reference by quoting first from a Question and Answer document published simultaneously with the decision to set up the three Inquiries, and then from a Framework Document issued by Dr Anderson on 14 December 2001 when the Inquiry formally began its work:
“ Question and Answer document
Q6 Why hasn't a public inquiry been established?
A6 We have always said that we wanted to see an inquiry that is carried out fully and effectively and uncovers the answers as expeditiously as possible and at as low a cost as possible. It is important that we get the right answers.
…
Q10 What is the role of the ‘Lessons Learned’ inquiry?
A10 It is an independent inquiry to make recommendations for the way in which the Government should handle any future major animal disease outbreak drawing on the lessons identified from the handling of the current foot and mouth disease outbreak in Great Britain.
Q11 Who will conduct the inquiry?
A11 It will be led by Dr Iain Anderson, who has extensive experience of contingency planning, supported by an independent Secretariat drawn from the Civil Contingencies Committee.
Q12 Too big a job for one person?
A12 Don't believe so. Dr Anderson will be supported by an independent Secretariat.
Q13 Will he have access to all Government papers? Including in 10 Downing Street?
A13 Dr Anderson will have our full co-operation, will have any papers and may speak to all Ministers including the PM.
Q14 Will Dr Anderson have the right to publish internal Government papers?
A14 No, but a report of his findings will be published.
Q15 Will the Inquiry apportion blame?
A15 The Inquiry is concerned with learning lessons and producing recommendations for the future handling of animal diseases. It is not intended that it should be judge and jury on the performance of individuals, it is not concerned with recriminations about the past.”
“ Framework Document
Key Questions
The Inquiry welcomes views from everyone about the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease. People and organisations can comment on any issues that they wish to in relation to the crisis, but there are also a number of general questions to which the Inquiry would be interested in receiving responses. These are as follows:
How adequate were the contingency plans at national and local levels for dealing with foot and mouth disease in Great Britain? What were the specific strengths and weaknesses?
How effective and timely was the Government's response to the emerging crisis nationally and in local communities?
What roles did MAFF/DEFRA, the State Veterinary Service, the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales, local government, the Armed Forces and others play in the crisis? Were they adequately organised, co-ordinated and resourced to do so?
How ready was the farming industry to handle a major infectious disease like foot and mouth and did the existing national and EU regulatory regimes have any influence? What more could be done to prepare for possible future outbreaks of infectious disease?
Once the scale of the crisis became clear, was the response proportionate to the impact on the wider rural and UK economy?
Would the use of vaccination have made any difference to the scale and/or duration of the outbreak, and its wider impact?
What could have been done differently to alleviate the economic, social and animal welfare impact of the unprecedented level of culling and disposal?
How effective were the communications systems for handling and responding to the outbreak?
[There was then set out the proposed timetable indicating that the Inquiry intended to complete work within six months and to submit a final report by mid-2002 with the possibility of interim findings meanwhile]
Overall approach
The Inquiry will be independent. Its central...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McStay v The Minister for Health and Children and Others
...STATE FOR HEALTH UNREP CA 9.7.1993 R (WAGSTAFF) v SECRETARY OF HEALTH 2001 1 WLR 292 R (PERSEY) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT 2002 3 WLR 704 CONVERY v DUBLIN CO COUNCIL 1996 3 IR 153 M v IRELAND (NO 2) 1997 2 IR 141 GLENCAR EXPLORATION PLC & ANDAMAN RESOURCES PLC v MAYO CO COUN......
-
R (Howard and Another) v Secretary of State for Health
...the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. I prefer the reasoning of Simon Brown L.J in Persey and others v The Secretary of State for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (unreported) the judgments in which were handed down on 15 March 2002 immediately before this judgment.......
-
R (D) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...more speedily and at less cost (see eg the decision of the Divisional Court in R (Persey) v Secretary of State for the Environment [2003] QB 794 per Simon Brown LJ at paragraphs 18–19 and 42–43) ; and b) the objectives of increasing public knowledge and confidence are fully met by providin......
-
Kennedy v Information Commissioner and another (Secretary of State for Justice and Others intervening) [SC]
...Division) Transcript No 824 of 1993), R (Wagstaff) v Secretary of State for Health [2001] 1 WLR 292 and R (Persey) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2003] QB 794; [2002] EWHC 371 (Admin), which suggest that it is always very much a matter of context. At on......