Blue Marine Foundation, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

A determination of UK fishing opportunities under section 23 of the Fisheries Act 2020 is made within the international framework governing the United Kingdom’s fishing opportunities. The power is not a free-standing domestic discretion to set lower limits independently of international agreements.

The decision-maker may rely on ministerial delegation and departmental briefing. Scientific advice is an important starting point, but sustainability, precautionary, ecosystem, bycatch, economic and social considerations may be balanced, particularly in mixed fisheries. There is no general duty to publish reasons whenever a determination departs from scientific advice.

The claimant, a marine-conservation charity, sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s determination of fishing opportunities for British fishing boats for 2024 under sections 23 and 24 of the Fisheries Act 2020. The determination largely reflected annual negotiations with the European Union and other coastal States and included quotas for several stocks above the relevant ICES scientific advice.

The claimant alleged irrational failure to consider or properly weigh scientific advice, failure to comply with the Joint Fisheries Statement and fisheries objectives, unlawful fettering of discretion, and unlawful reliance on officials rather than personal consideration by the Secretary of State. The issues concerned the relationship between international negotiations and the section 23 power, ministerial consideration, and any duty to give reasons.

1. The claim was dismissed. The Secretary of State lawfully delegated responsibility for directing the negotiating position and carrying out consultation to the responsible Minister. Nothing in the Fisheries Act 2020 or the common law prevented that delegation.
2. The section 23(1) power was not free-standing. Section 23(2) confined its purpose to compliance with an international obligation to determine the United Kingdom’s fishing opportunities. The international context, including negotiations and agreements, was therefore fundamental. The Joint Fisheries Statement stated that determinations would normally follow international negotiations and reflect their agreements.
3. The Minister and Secretary of State had ample material concerning ICES advice, negotiations, economic effects, stakeholder views and the fisheries objectives. Departures from the ICES starting point for Celtic Sea cod, Irish Sea whiting and anglerfish were explained by mixed-fishery, bycatch and socio-economic considerations. The resulting balance was a discretionary judgment falling well short of irrationality.
4. The fisheries objectives were not free-standing rules requiring each objective to prevail. The JFS required them to be read as a package, permitted a balanced and proportionate approach, and recognised that one objective might be prioritised over another in the short term. The weight given to competing policies was for the decision-maker.
5. There was no general duty under section 23 or 24 to publish reasons whenever scientific advice was not followed. Parliament had expressly required reasons for departures in specified provisions, including section 10(2) and relevant multiannual-plan provisions. Adequate transparency was supplied through stakeholder briefings, published negotiation records, consultation, the determination’s annexes and the Cefas report.