## Facts

- The case involved changes to the early release policy for prisoners.
- Previously, a policy permitted well-behaved prisoners to earn remission of their sentences.
- The Home Secretary introduced a new, less generous policy regarding prisoner release.
- Prisoners argued that the original policy created a legitimate expectation of early release under the former terms.
- The Court of Appeal considered whether altering the policy frustrated the prisoners’ legitimate expectations unlawfully.

## Issues

1. Did the previous policy create a substantive legitimate expectation of early release for prisoners?
2. Was the change in policy by the Home Secretary unlawful due to an alleged frustration of that expectation?
3. What threshold is required to establish a substantive legitimate expectation in administrative law?
4. Can overriding public interest justify departing from a previously established policy?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal found the prisoners did not have a substantive legitimate expectation enforceable in law.
- The court distinguished between procedural and substantive legitimate expectations, applying a high threshold for the latter.
- It held that a legitimate expectation of the substantive kind requires a clear and unambiguous promise or established practice, and mere awareness of a prior policy is insufficient.
- The court stated that the public interest may justify changes in policy, even if an expectation has been established.

## Legal Principles

- Substantive legitimate expectations require a specific, clear, and unambiguous representation or established practice that induces reasonable reliance.
- Procedural legitimate expectations protect the expectation of a particular process or consultation rather than a specific outcome.
- Mere knowledge of an existing policy does not create a substantive legitimate expectation.
- The public interest may override a legitimate expectation if authorities justify the change as necessary and proportionate.
- The burden is on public authorities to demonstrate compelling public interest when departing from an established policy.
- The principles in this case set a high evidentiary standard for enforceable substantive legitimate expectations and support the flexibility of authorities to alter policy in the public interest.

## Conclusion

R v Home Secretary, ex p Hargreaves established that substantive legitimate expectations in administrative law are only enforceable when based on a clear and unambiguous representation or practice, with demonstrable reliance, and can be overridden by sufficient public interest. This decision clarified the legal framework distinguishing between procedural and substantive legitimate expectations, emphasizing the evidentiary and public interest considerations necessary for judicial enforcement.

R v Home Secretary, ex p Hargreaves [1997] 1 All ER 397