Evans vs H. M. Attorney General - Essay Example

Evans v H. M. Attorney General The release of certain information, under the 2000 Freedom of Information Act, might harm international relationships. The publication of other information might influence the conduct of talks. If tactical any information is released, then it may put troops in danger. An instance is what transpired when Wikileaks published emails and internal memos that seemed to criticise allies of the United States. However, it also taught government officers on how they should be interacting properly, as well as effectively.

In general, this act agitates for accountability of elected and appointed government officers to the general public that they serve.The United Kingdom Court of Appeal listened to the case of Evans and H. M. Attorney General whereby it acknowledged that the two parties might each have diverse but rational views of a reply to an issue such as the balance of public interests. However, if one of those parties is an independent, neutral tribunal or a court that had carried out a full examination of the claims, for the defendant (AG) to have “rational grounds” to assume a different perception, he should be in a position to demonstrate that the tribunal had evidently erred in fact or law, or that there had been a significant shift of circumstances.

However, none of this applied in this case. The declaration of reasons was therefore illegitimate. Therefore, the Court of Appeal used a likeness from cases assuming this approach in the immigration and planning context. This case goes a long way to show that access to information is limited when the court shows that it will hurt the public interest.