R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs,...

Facts

• The case concerned the UK government's decision to provide financial aid for the Pergau Dam project in Malaysia.
• The Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 empowered the Secretary of State to provide aid aimed at advancing the economic and social development of developing countries.
• The World Development Movement (WDM) challenged the legality of the aid, alleging it was unlawfully used to facilitate a linked arms deal between the UK and Malaysia, contrary to the Act’s intended purpose.

Issues

1. Whether the Secretary of State’s decision to grant aid for the Pergau Dam was made for an improper purpose not authorized by the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980.
2. Whether government discretionary powers under statute could be challenged on the ground that they were exercised for purposes not intended by Parliament.
3. Whether pressure groups such as the WDM had standing to bring judicial review in matters involving governmental aid decisions.

Decision

• The High Court ruled in favour of the WDM, finding the Secretary of State’s aid decision unlawful due to improper purpose.
• The judgment determined that the principal reason for the funding was to secure an arms contract, not to advance development as required by the 1980 Act.
• Evidence linked the aid allocation directly to the arms agreement, demonstrating a misuse of statutory power.
• The court confirmed that restricting discretionary powers to their intended statutory purposes is essential.
• The WDM was recognized as having sufficient standing to challenge the decision.

Legal Principles

• The doctrine of improper purpose prohibits the use of statutory powers for a purpose not authorised by the enabling legislation.
• A decision may be unlawful even if it is within the literal wording of the statute, where the actual intent is outside Parliament’s objective.
• Judicial review acts as a mechanism for ensuring accountability and scrutinising executive actions.
• Precedent cases, such as Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, confirm that both the exercise and refusal to exercise power must align with statutory purposes.
• Pressure groups may have standing to bring judicial review proceedings in matters of public interest.

Conclusion

R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte World Development Movement Ltd established that governmental aid decisions must conform to their statutory purpose, reinforcing the doctrine of improper purpose and enhancing accountability through judicial review.