Recent Cases in Administrative Law
| Published date | 01 June 1956 |
| Date | 01 June 1956 |
| Author | HARRY STREET |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1956.tb01491.x |
Recent Cases
in
Administrative
Law
By PROFESSOR HARRY STREET
The last survey
of
Recent Cases in Adminisrrarive Law by Professor Sweet
was published
in
the Winrer,
1952,
issue.
Discovery
of
Documents
HE
Crown is empowered, whether or not it is a party to the litigation, to
T
refuse to produce documents if to do
so
would be contrary to the public
interest. The Crown continues to use this power in circumstances where the
“
public interest
”
is not obvious and in such a way as to defeat the ends of
justice. In
Ellis
v.
Home Office]
a prisoner who had been violently assaulted
by another prisoner,
H.,
brought an action against the Home Office alleging
that, because of the previous behaviour in prison of
H.
and his medical
history, it was negligent to leave H. unguarded
in
the prison. The Home
Office refused to produce the police and medical reports on H.’s behaviour
in prison, with the result that the prisoner was unable to substantiate his claim.
There were the
usual
complaints by the Court about the way in which the
Government exercised this power and the usual judicial recognition of their
inability to interfere with the governmental decision.
Most controversial of all is the refusal of the Government to produce
files, not because they contain important secret material, but on the asserted
ground that civil servants would no longer express themselves candidly in
minutes if there were any risk of their observations being later put in evidence
in court. There is much to be said for a recent remark by Lord Radcliffe in
a House of Lords case2:
I
should myself have supposed Crown servants to
be made of sterner stuff.” In Scotland the courts have a discretion in excep-
tional circumstances to overrule the Minister’s refusal to produce3. The
privilege extends only to the Crown4, and not, for example, to local govern-
ment bodies5.
The Court has, however, in one recent cases, succeeded in making some
limit on the demands of the Crown for privilege. A wife petitioning for
divorce from her soldier husband desired to summon as witness a member
of
the Soldiers’, Sailors’ and Airmen’s Families Association who was in a position
to give relevant evidence about their domestic circumstances in Singapore.
The Crown objected, asserting that it could prevent any witness (Crown
servant or otherwise) from giving evidence on any class of facts whenever it
chose to certify that to give evidence would be contrary to the public interest.
The court overruled the Crown’s objection and the witness gave her evidence.
Compulsory Purchase Orders
Before a Minister confirms an order for the compulsory purchase of land
his inspector conducts a local inquiry and then sends a report to the Minister
who then makes his decision on the basis of the report and such other materials
as he thinks fit. The House of Lords has long since acknowledged that
aggrieved landowners are not entitled to see these reports, and it has not been
the practice of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (and its pre-
decessors) to produce them.
Darlassis
v,
Minister
of
Education’
reveals the
215
To continue reading
Request your trial