The States of Guernsey & Anor v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

This judicial review claim challenges two related decisions: the indefinite suspension by the First Defendant ("Defra") of the Fisheries Management Agreement ("FMA") with the First Claimant ("Guernsey") on 23rd July 2015, and the subsequent indefinite suspension by the Second Defendant ("MMO") of reciprocal UK fishing vessel licences issued to Bailiwick-registered vessels from 1st August 2015. The dispute concerns the application and scope of the Common Fisheries Policy ("CFP") and associated EU quotas within the 3-12 nautical mile zone surrounding the Bailiwick of Guernsey, and the rights of licence holders under Article 1 Protocol 1 ("A1P1") of the European Convention on Human Rights ("ECHR").

Guernsey, a Crown Dependency with its own fisheries policy department, operates a licensing regime for vessels fishing within its territorial waters. The FMA and a related Memorandum of Understanding ("MoU") between Guernsey and the MMO set out non-legally binding arrangements for fisheries management in the 3-12 nm zone, including licensing and quota management. The UK government, through Defra and the MMO, asserts that EU quota rules apply within this zone and that Guernsey must adhere to them, while Guernsey disputes the direct applicability of these quotas.

Following concerns about overfishing, particularly of Skates and Rays by a vessel named the "Amy Blue," Defra suspended the FMA and the MMO suspended reciprocal licences, triggering this judicial review. The Claimants challenge these suspensions as irrational and as breaches of A1P1 rights.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the decisions to suspend the FMA and reciprocal licences are justiciable given the political and treaty-like nature of the FMA.
2. Whether the suspension decisions were irrational, lacking a rational connection between means and ends.
3. Whether the suspension of licences and the FMA infringed rights under Article 1 Protocol 1 of the ECHR, particularly for the individual Claimant holding reciprocal licences.

Arguments of the Parties

Claimants' Arguments

• The FMA does not impose legally binding obligations and thus the suspension decisions lack a proper legal basis.
• The suspension was irrational as it did not logically address the overfishing issue, focusing instead on a systemic problem that did not exist.
• The suspension infringed the A1P1 rights of licence holders by depriving or controlling their possessions (licences and entitlements) without adequate justification or compensation.
• Less intrusive alternatives were available but not properly considered by Defra.

Defendants' Arguments

• The FMA, while not legally binding, creates public law obligations and is amenable to judicial review.
• The suspension decisions were rational responses to a fundamental impasse regarding the application of EU quotas in the 3-12 nm zone.
• The individual Claimant’s licences and entitlements constitute possessions under A1P1, but Defra had powers to suspend or revoke these licences lawfully.
• The Claimant had no reasonable or legitimate expectation that the FMA or licences would continue indefinitely given the breakdown of the agreement.
• The suspension was proportionate, justified, and struck a fair balance between private rights and public interests in sustainable fisheries management.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first addressed justiciability, rejecting the Defendants' submission that the FMA is analogous to a treaty between sovereign states and thus non-justiciable. It distinguished the FMA from foreign treaties, noting that the court has full competence and transparency in this area of fisheries regulation. The court found that the individual Claimant's rights under A1P1 are justiciable as they arise under domestic law and are anterior to the suspension of the FMA.

On irrationality, the court rejected the Claimants’ narrow characterization of the problem as solely overfishing of Skates and Rays by one vessel. Instead, it accepted Defra's broader view that the fundamental disagreement about the application of EU quotas rendered the FMA dysfunctional. The suspension was a reasonable and rational attempt to bring Guernsey back to negotiations. The court found no evidence of improper motives or unfair punishment by Defra.

Regarding A1P1, the court held that the Bailiwick licence and the reciprocal licence constitute "possessions" due to their economic value and marketability. While Defra had broad powers to suspend or revoke licences, the Claimant had a reasonable and legitimate expectation that the licences would continue unless justifiably interfered with. The burden thus shifted to Defra to justify the interference.

Applying the four-stage proportionality test from In re Medical Costs for Asbestos Diseases (Wales) Bill, the court found:

• The suspension pursued a legitimate aim of sustainable fisheries management and compliance with EU quotas.
• There was a rational connection between the suspension and the aim, given the breakdown in agreement.
• Defra considered less intrusive alternatives, including options involving Producer Organisations, but these were found unsuitable.
• Defra struck a fair balance between private rights and the public interest, taking into account the interests of fishermen across UK administrations and the need for equitable resource allocation.

The court acknowledged the significant economic impact on licence holders but concluded this was an unavoidable consequence of the impasse and did not render the decision disproportionate.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the claim for judicial review.

The direct consequence is that the suspension of the FMA and the reciprocal licences stands, subject to any further negotiations or legal developments. The court did not establish any new precedent but clarified that:

• Non-legally binding agreements such as the FMA can give rise to public law obligations and be subject to judicial review.
• Licences and entitlements with economic value are protected possessions under A1P1, but broad suspension powers may justify interference if proportionate.
• Judicial review is available even in politically sensitive areas when individual rights are engaged.