This was a judicial review about the determination of fishing opportunities for British fishing boats. Each year, through a series of bilateral, trilateral and multilateral negotiations, the UK cooperates with other coastal States to manage fish stocks through annual consultations underpinned by international agreements. The determination under challenge was that of 22 December 2023 which set the 2024 fishing opportunities for British fishing boats that may be caught in the United Kingdom, European Union, Norwegian, Svalbard, and international waters.

The issue at the centre of the claim was whether, in determining the fishing opportunities for British fishing boats, the Secretary of State took into account relevant scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (“ICES”) and the reasons (including any evidence) for departing from the scientific advice.

The Claimant is a charity which aims to combat overfishing and destruction of biodiversity through the creation of large-scale marine reserves and new models of sustainable fishing.

The judge dismissed the claim, finding that the Secretary of State had not acted unlawfully.

The judge held that: (1) the Secretary of State lawfully delegated responsibility for directing the UK’s negotiating position on total allowable catches (“TACs”) to the appropriate responsible Minister and that both the Minister and the Secretary of State received beneficial advice from experienced senior civil servants who played an important role in considering the relevant issues and policies; (2) the Secretary of State had not unlawfully fettered his discretion by “slavishly” treating the outcome of international negotiations as levels for the determination. In doing so, she remarked that the international context – including international negotiations and agreements – is fundamental to determining British fishing opportunities under s23(1) of the Fisheries Act 2020 and that it would be very surprising if the determination did not follow the negotiated outcome; (3) there is ample evidence that the Secretary of State had proper regard to scientific advice from ICES prior to and during the international negotiations which led to the determination; and (4) it is axiomatic that in considering matters of economic, environmental and social policy that the Secretary of State should be afforded a wide margin of discretion. The weight to be given to the relevant policies governing the determination of fishing opportunities and the competing factors required a complex balancing exercise. These were matters for the decision-maker to determine, in the exercise of his discretionary judgment, and the Claimant’s disagreement with the decisions made is not a sufficient basis for a legal challenge.

Ned Westaway and Claire Nevin appeared for the Defendant, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.