Privacy International, R (On the Application Of) v The Commissioner for HM Revenue & Customs
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE GREEN
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Human Rights Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This judicial review case evaluates HMRC's powers and duties to disclose information about its export control activities to Privacy International. The court determined that HMRC does have the discretion to disclose under section 18(2) of the CRCA 2005 and identified several legal errors in HMRC's decision-making process, directing HMRC to reconsider its decision.
Judgment
Mr Justice Green :
Index
A. Introduction and issue 1-5
B. Relevant facts 6-27
The initial complaint by Privacy International to BIS. 6-8
The BIS response. 9-13
The Privacy International complaint to HMRC 14-15
The HMRC responses 16-27
The Decision letter 17-18
The subsequent explanation of the reasons
for the Decision letter 19-23
The letters from the HMRC Strategic
Export Referrals Team (SERT) 24-26
The update from HMRC 27
C. The position of the activists: Dr Shehabi and Mr Kersmo 28-32
D. The Statutory framework 33-
The statutory prohibition upon disclosure. 35-36
The exceptions to the prohibition – the power
to disclose under section 18(2)(a) and (d) CRCA 2005. 37
The “functions” of the HMRC in relation to
export control 38-47
The relationship between CRCA 2005 powers of
disclosure and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 48-51
The margin of appreciation accorded to HMRC 52-62
E. The lawfulness of the Decision: Whether to quash and remit? 63-72
Point 1: Failure to obtain evidence from the
relevant operational unit within HMRC. 64-74
Point 2: Failure to have regard to the actual
complaint letter and accompanying dossier of evidence. 65
Point 3: The Decision letter contains an error law on
its face. 66
Point 4: The ex post facto explanations for the
Decision letter are not admissible to re-write
the Decision. 67
Point 5: The Decision letter read in the light of
the supplementary reasons still reflects an
error of law; it relies only upon abstract
arguments and fails to involve an assessment of
the surrounding facts. 68
Point 6: The update statement does not advance
matters. 69
Point 7: The Decision letter responded to the
request in the wrong letter. 70
Point 8: The position of HMRC generally
reflects internal confusion which undermines
the credibility of its response. 71
Conclusion 72-73
F. Factors relevant to the exercise of discretion I: The status
of affected persons 74-131
The issue 74-76
Pressure groups / NGO’s / the press 77-81
Victims 82-115
Witnesses 116-120
Complainants 121
Companies investigated:- 122-
(i) Forewarning the suspect 123
(ii) Reputation 124-130
(iii) Confidentiality of information 131
G. Factors relevant to the exercise of discretion II: Securing
cooperation and confidence in the system 132-135
H. Factors relevant to the exercise of discretion III: The right
to a No Further Action (“NFA”) decision and reasons 136-179
The issue 136-141
The position in common law