R (on the application of March) v Secretary of State for Health, [2010] EWHC 765 (Admin), [2010] All ER (D) 93 (Apr)
A public law decision could be quashed if the published reasons or reasoning of the government revealed a material error of fact in their reasoning process.
But the claimant would have to demonstrate that: (i) there was an error of fact; and (ii) it was material and that a different decision might have been made but for the error. If a minister explained or elaborated upon the published reasons by answers to questions in Parliament, the court might consider what the minister said as part of its examination of the government’s reasoning process for their decision.
But the court would not have to reach conclusion on any inadequacy or lack of accuracy in the proceedings in Parliament. The role of the court was limited to examining the decision under review.
