header-logo header-logo

26 February 2009 / Neil Parpworth
Issue: 7358 / Categories: Features , Public , Human rights , Freedom of Information
printer mail-detail

Crystal Clear?

Should public bodies make known the reasons behind their decisions? Asks Neil Parpworth

Decisions made by public bodies very often have important and sometimes far-reaching consequences for those who are directly affected by them. In order for there to be public confidence in the decision making process, and for a decision maker to be held publicly accountable for the decisions it reaches, it is desirable that the process should be as transparent as the subject matter of the decision permits.

 

Transparency

A key feature of a transparent process is that decisions are accompanied by reasons. Where this is the case, the person affected by the decision is in a better position to appreciate on what basis the decision has been made. If, for example, the decision in question relates to a refusal to grant an applicant a licence to carry out some particular activity, explaining why the applicant was unsuccessful on this occasion may help the applicant to address the relevant issue or issues so that a future application for the same licence will stand a better chance of success.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll