header-logo header-logo

26 February 2009 / Neil Parpworth
Issue: 7358 / Categories: Features , Public , Human rights , Freedom of Information
printer mail-detail

Crystal Clear?

Should public bodies make known the reasons behind their decisions? Asks Neil Parpworth

Decisions made by public bodies very often have important and sometimes far-reaching consequences for those who are directly affected by them. In order for there to be public confidence in the decision making process, and for a decision maker to be held publicly accountable for the decisions it reaches, it is desirable that the process should be as transparent as the subject matter of the decision permits.

 

Transparency

A key feature of a transparent process is that decisions are accompanied by reasons. Where this is the case, the person affected by the decision is in a better position to appreciate on what basis the decision has been made. If, for example, the decision in question relates to a refusal to grant an applicant a licence to carry out some particular activity, explaining why the applicant was unsuccessful on this occasion may help the applicant to address the relevant issue or issues so that a future application for

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll