The Queen on the application of Greenpeace Limited (Claimant) and The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defendant) Pays/Territoire Royaume-Uni Type de cour Autres Date Oct 10, 2005 Source UNEP, InforMEA Nom du tribunal High Court of Justice Siège de la cour London Juge Burnton Numéro de référence [2005] EWHC 2144 (Admin) Langue Anglais Sujet Pêche, Espèces sauvages et écosystèmes Mot clé Prises accessoires Engins de pêche/méthodes de pêche Mammifères marins Procédures judiciaires/procédures administratives Résumé In this case Greenpeace sought judicial review of a decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to make the South-west Territorial Waters (Prohibition of Pair Trawling) Order 2004, which prohibited the use of specified pair trawl nets by UK fishing boats within 12 nautical miles of the coast of England. The motive for prohibiting the use of the mentioned trawl nets was the reduction of unintended dolphin deaths caused by fishing, known as bycatch. However, Greenpeace believed that the Order would increase dolphin deaths instead of reducing them. They contended that the order was irrational, and did not consider specific opinions advanced in the consultation process, that the Order would not just be ineffective, but actually have a negative effect in that displacement of fishing effort would result in a greater number of bycatch mortalities. Greenpeace suggested that the motive for the Order was improperly political: to give the (false) impression that the Government was taking effective action to save dolphins. The Court was of the view that there was no substantial scientific basis for the prohibition. However, when considering whether the Minister had the power to make the order, it had to be borne in mind that Parliament did not impose any express requirement as to the evidence or information available to the Minister when exercising his power under the relevant section. The relevant regulation conferred power on the Minister to impose restrictions such as those contained in the Order "for marine environment purposes". In the case of the order in question the power was exercised for that purpose and the Minister considered the relevant issues. The Court emphasized that power to strike down a statutory instrument on the ground that the Minister’s decision to make it was perverse was one to be exercised with caution. The primary review of delegated legislation ought to be Parliamentary. As a result, the claim to quash the Order was dismissed. Texte intégral greenpeace_v_efra_1005.htm