R v Pollution Inspectorate, ex parte Greenpeace (No 2) [1994...

Facts

• British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL) sought authorization to discharge radioactive waste from its Thorp reprocessing plant.
• Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution (HMIP) granted the authorization.
• Greenpeace, an international environmental organization, challenged the legality of the authorization process through judicial review.
• The main issue was whether Greenpeace had sufficient standing to bring judicial review proceedings, given its structure as a pressure group.
• Greenpeace had over 400,000 UK supporters, with several thousand residing near the Thorp plant.

Issues

1. Whether Greenpeace had sufficient interest (locus standi) to initiate judicial review against the decision to authorize radioactive waste discharge.
2. Whether knowledge and local interest of a group can establish standing in administrative law proceedings.
3. Whether permitting organizations like Greenpeace to have standing would broaden the scope of judicial review appropriately, balancing access to justice with prevention of frivolous claims.

Decision

• The High Court granted standing to Greenpeace to bring the judicial review.
• The court emphasized Greenpeace's substantial membership and genuine local interest through members residing near the Thorp plant.
• Greenpeace's recognized experience in environmental matters provided a legitimate and informed viewpoint on the potential consequences of the discharge.
• The judge distinguished Greenpeace from "busybodies," instead recognizing it as a responsible entity with legitimate environmental concerns.
• The court acknowledged that allowing organizations with relevant knowledge and local interest improves scrutiny of complex technical decisions in environmental matters.

Legal Principles

• Standing (locus standi) can be established by a pressure group based on both the knowledge it possesses in the relevant subject area and the local interest of its members.
• Courts should consider sufficiency of interest on a case-by-case basis, especially in environmental and technical areas.
• Knowledge and direct local interest are significant factors in the assessment of standing, broadening access to judicial review beyond individual claimants.
• The ruling contrasted with prior restrictive approaches, such as in R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617, where standing was denied for lack of sufficient interest.

Conclusion

The court’s recognition of Greenpeace’s standing based on organizational knowledge and the local interest of its members marked a significant development in administrative law. This broadened access to judicial review for responsible pressure groups in complex and technical subject areas, especially in environmental matters, and established a precedent for public interest organizations to challenge administrative decisions when individual action would be impractical.