## Facts

- The case concerned the decision of the Education Secretary to discontinue the assisted places scheme, which impacted the claimant's expectation regarding continued financial support for her daughter's private education.
- The claimant argued that a clear and unambiguous representation by the government created a legitimate expectation for continued funding.
- The Education Secretary’s policy change arose from shifting political and economic circumstances, reflecting wider national priorities and resource allocation.
- The claimant was disappointed by the change, leading to judicial review proceedings challenging the lawfulness of the decision.

## Issues

1. Whether the claimant had a legitimate expectation, either substantive or procedural, of continued benefit from the assisted places scheme.
2. Whether the public body's change in policy constituted unfairness or breach of legitimate expectation under administrative law.
3. Whether fairness to the individual could outweigh the Education Secretary’s statutory duty to advance wider policy objectives.
4. The extent to which courts may scrutinize or substitute judgment in matters involving ministerial discretion and policy changes.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal found that while a legitimate expectation can arise from clear and unambiguous representations, such expectations cannot fetter a public body’s statutory authority to modify policy in light of public interests.
- The court concluded that discontinuation of the scheme, though disappointing to the claimant, did not amount to unfairness or breach of legitimate expectation.
- The judgment reaffirmed the role of ministerial discretion in responding to changing policy considerations and upheld that courts should not substitute their judgment for that of the executive on policy matters.
- The distinction between procedural and substantive legitimate expectations was reaffirmed, clarifying that fairness is a relevant but not overriding consideration.

## Legal Principles

- Legitimate expectation may arise from representations or practices, but its protection is not absolute and is subject to the statutory duties and policy objectives of public bodies.
- There is a critical distinction between substantive and procedural legitimate expectation: the former concerns promised benefits, the latter the decision-making process.
- The principle of fairness must be balanced against the need for effective governance and the ability of public bodies to respond to evolving political and economic contexts.
- Ministerial discretion in policy formulation is preserved; judicial review ensures legality but does not permit courts to intrude upon executive policy decisions, provided the decision-making process is lawful.
- The case clarifies when an individual's expectation may be overridden by legitimate public policy, providing guidance for future administrative decisions.

## Conclusion

R v Secretary of State for Education and Employment, ex parte Begbie [2000] 1 WLR 1115 clarifies the doctrine of legitimate expectation, establishing that while fairness is a relevant factor, it cannot override a public body's duty to consider policy objectives and national priorities. The judgment confirms the limits of judicial review in matters of policy and instructs that public bodies are allowed flexibility to modify policies where justified by public interest.

R v Secretary of State for Education and Employment, ex parte Begbie [2000] 1 WLR 1115 (CA)