R (Wheeler) v Office of the Prime Minister [2008] EWHC 1409 ...

Facts

• The claimants challenged the government's refusal to hold a public referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon.
• The government had previously promised a referendum on the Constitutional Treaty, the predecessor to the Lisbon Treaty.
• Claimants argued that this prior commitment created a legitimate expectation that a referendum would also be held for the Lisbon Treaty.
• The High Court analyzed the specific language and context of the government's prior statements and whether the claimants reasonably relied on them.

Issues

1. Did the government's previous statements regarding a referendum on the Constitutional Treaty create a legitimate expectation of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty?
2. Can a political promise constitute a clear, unambiguous, and unqualified representation giving rise to an enforceable legitimate expectation?
3. To what extent does the distinction between political pronouncements and legal obligations impact the doctrine of legitimate expectation in this context?

Decision

• The High Court held that statements about a referendum on the Constitutional Treaty did not establish a legitimate expectation regarding the Lisbon Treaty.
• The court emphasized significant differences between the Constitutional Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty, finding that reliance on the previous commitment was unreasonable.
• The court recognized that political promises do not automatically give rise to enforceable legal rights.
• It was determined that the government's prerogative powers in matters of foreign policy limited the applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation in this context.

Legal Principles

• The doctrine of legitimate expectation requires a clear, unambiguous, and unqualified representation upon which a person may reasonably rely to their detriment.
• Political pronouncements, as opposed to individualized or specific administrative promises, generally do not give rise to legally enforceable expectations due to their inherently flexible and changeable nature.
• The threshold for establishing a legitimate expectation based on political commitment is high, especially where prerogative powers or evolving political circumstances are involved.
• The decision distinguishes between substantive legitimate expectations arising out of specific, individualized statements (as in ex parte Coughlan) and more generalized political promises.

Conclusion

The High Court concluded that the doctrine of legitimate expectation does not extend to political promises such as those concerning referenda on treaties, particularly where substantial differences and political discretion are present; such commitments do not constitute legally enforceable obligations.