Attorney-General v Jonathan Cape Ltd [1976] 1 QB 752 (QB)

Facts

• Richard Crossman, a former Cabinet minister, authored diaries that documented private Cabinet discussions and decisions.
• Plans were made to publish these diaries, containing confidential details about Cabinet debates.
• The Attorney-General sought an injunction to prevent publication, contending that disclosure would undermine collective ministerial responsibility and public trust by revealing confidential government deliberations.
• The claim argued that confidentiality in Cabinet discussions is essential for effective government.

Issues

1. Whether the court could grant an injunction to prevent publication of Cabinet diaries in order to protect the confidentiality central to collective ministerial responsibility.
2. Whether collective ministerial responsibility, as a constitutional practice, is capable of legal enforcement by the courts.
3. How to balance the public interest in governmental transparency with the need for confidentiality in Cabinet proceedings.

Decision

• The High Court recognized the constitutional importance of collective Cabinet responsibility but denied the injunction sought by the Attorney-General.
• The court held that collective ministerial responsibility is a political convention, not a legal rule, and thus not enforceable by the judiciary.
• The judgment asserted that matters of political practice are for Parliament and the electorate, not for judicial enforcement.
• Lord Widgery CJ noted the public interest in transparency, but stated that such disclosures should respect a period of confidentiality to protect effective government.
• The court observed that past Cabinet discussions could be published after a reasonable time, balancing democratic openness with governmental confidentiality.

Legal Principles

• Practices such as collective ministerial responsibility are political conventions rather than legal rules, lacking enforceability by the courts.
• The judiciary distinguishes between enforceable legal obligations and constitutional conventions that should be left to political processes.
• Courts maintain separation from political disputes, respecting the divided roles of legal and governmental institutions.
• Confidentiality for Cabinet deliberations is important, but must eventually yield to the public interest in transparency.

Conclusion

The High Court held that collective ministerial responsibility is a political convention not subject to legal enforcement, refusing to enjoin publication of Cabinet diaries and affirming the judiciary's restraint in political matters within the UK constitution.