Introduction

In the case of The Scottish Creel Fishermen's Federation against the Scottish Ministers ([2021] ScotCS CSOH_1), the Scottish Court of Session addressed significant issues related to administrative law and procedural fairness in the context of fisheries management. The petitioner, the Scottish Creel Fishermen's Federation (SCFF), challenged a decision by the Scottish Ministers, exercised through Marine Scotland, to reject their proposal for an inshore fisheries pilot scheme in the Inner Sound of Skye.

The core of the dispute revolved around whether Marine Scotland appropriately assessed SCFF's New Proposal against the established criteria outlined in their own guidance document. This commentary delves into the court's analysis, the legal principles applied, and the broader implications of the Judgment.

Summary of the Judgment

The court concluded that Marine Scotland acted unlawfully by failing to assess SCFF's New Proposal against the published criteria in the "Inshore Fisheries Pilots Initiative" Guidance. By basing their decision primarily on the opposition to the proposal, rather than a structured evaluation against predefined criteria, Marine Scotland breached principles of procedural fairness and legitimate expectations. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of SCFF, mandating that the Scottish Ministers must reassess the proposal in accordance with their established guidelines.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Judgment references several key cases that underpin administrative law principles:

• R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union [1995] UKHL 3: Emphasizes the need for public authorities to keep their decisions under review.
• Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997: Highlights limits on discretionary powers.
• R (Nadarajah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 1363: Discusses procedural fairness and good administration.
• R v North and East Devon Health Authority, ex p Coughlan [2001] QB 213: Defines legitimate expectations.
• Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223: Establishes the standard of reasonableness in administrative decisions.
• R (Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] UKSC 12: Addresses lawful exercise of discretion.
• Wordie Property Co Ltd v Secretary of State for Scotland [1984] SLT 345: Pertains to the adequacy of reasons provided for decisions.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning centered on the principles of administrative law, notably the obligations of public authorities to act lawfully, reasonably, and fairly. Key points include:

• Adherence to Published Criteria: Marine Scotland had established clear criteria for assessing proposals. By not applying these criteria to SCFF’s New Proposal, Marine Scotland failed to adhere to its own framework.
• Legitimate Expectations: SCFF had a legitimate expectation that their proposal would be evaluated based on the published criteria. The court found this expectation was clearly established and frustrating it was unjust.
• Material Considerations: The published criteria were deemed material considerations that must be taken into account. Ignoring them rendered the decision irrational.
• Reasonableness: The decision to reject the proposal based solely on opposition without proper assessment against the criteria was deemed unreasonable under the Wednesbury standard.
• Adequate Reasoning: Marine Scotland failed to provide adequate reasons linking the decision to the criteria, violating the requirement for intelligible reasoning.

Impact

This Judgment reinforces the necessity for public authorities to strictly follow their own guidelines and criteria when evaluating proposals. It underscores the importance of:

• Procedural Transparency: Authorities must transparently apply published criteria to ensure fairness.
• Respecting Legitimate Expectations: Clear and unambiguous guidance binds public bodies to certain procedural standards.
• Accountability in Decision-Making: Adequate reasoning must be provided to justify decisions, especially when deviating from established procedures.

Future cases involving administrative decisions by public authorities may cite this Judgment to argue the indispensability of following procedural guidelines and respecting stakeholders' legitimate expectations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Procedural Fairness

Also known as "natural justice," procedural fairness ensures that decision-making processes are conducted impartially and consistently. It requires authorities to follow their own rules and guidelines, especially when these have been publicly established.

Legitimate Expectations

This principle holds that if a public authority sets out clear, unambiguous criteria or processes, stakeholders can justifiably expect these to be followed unless there is a compelling reason not to.

Material Considerations

These are factors that are relevant and must be considered in the decision-making process. Ignoring material considerations can render a decision irrational or unlawful.

Wednesbury Unreasonableness

A standard from the case Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation, it dictates that a decision is unreasonable if no reasonable authority could ever have come to it, signaling an extreme level of unreasonableness.

Adequate Reasoning

Decision-makers must provide clear and logical explanations for their decisions. This ensures transparency and allows affected parties to understand the rationale behind decisions.

Conclusion

The Judgment in The Scottish Creel Fishermen's Federation against the Scottish Ministers serves as a pivotal reference in administrative law, particularly concerning the obligations of public authorities to adhere to their own procedural guidelines. By emphasizing the principles of procedural fairness, legitimate expectations, and the necessity for adequate reasoning, the court reinforced the standards to which public bodies are held accountable.

For stakeholders and public authorities alike, this case underscores the critical importance of transparency, consistency, and adherence to established criteria in decision-making processes. As administrative decisions continue to impact various sectors, this Judgment provides a clear framework for evaluating the lawfulness and fairness of such actions, ensuring that public administration operates within the bounds of fairness and reasonableness.