header-logo header-logo

Crystal Clear?

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

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

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll