Copies of documents submitted to the court as outlined in the Welsh Government’s most recent joint statement regarding legal proceedings issued involving Baglan Energy Park.
11 February 2022
Request for Information – ATISN 15964
I wrote to you on 7 February regarding your request for information regarding Baglan Energy Park.
You asked for:
- Access to the documents submitted to the court as outlined in the Welsh Government’s most recent joint statement re legal proceedings issued involving Baglan Energy Park.
I can confirm that the Welsh Government holds information captured by your request, however, this information is exempt from disclosure under section 42 - Legal Professional Privilege, of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and is therefore withheld. The reasons for applying this exemption are set out in full at Annex A to this letter.
If you are dissatisfied with the Welsh Government’s handling of your request, you can ask for an internal review within 40 working days of the date of this response. Requests for an internal review should be addressed to the Welsh Government’s Freedom of Information Officer at: Information Rights Unit, Welsh Government, Cathays Park, Cardiff, CF10 3NQ or Email: Freedom.email@example.com. Please remember to quote the ATISN reference number above.
You also have the right to complain to the Information Commissioner. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF. However, please note that the Commissioner will not normally investigate a complaint until it has been through our own internal review process.
Section 42 – Legal Professional Privilege.
This exemption states (inter alia):
(1) Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege or, in Scotland, to confidentiality of communications could be maintained in legal proceedings is exempt information.
Legal professional privilege (LPP) covers communications between lawyers and their clients for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, or documents created by or for lawyers for the “dominant” (main) purpose of litigation. The information in question concerns confidential communications made for the purpose of providing or obtaining legal advice or for lawyers to use in preparing a case for litigation.
The section 42 exemption is qualified, which means that it is subject to a public interest test. That there is a public interest served in public authorities being able to access advice which benefited from professional legal privilege was noted in Bellamy v the Information Commission and DTI [EA/2005/0023] in which the tribunal, on the subject of LPP said:
"there is a strong element of public interest inbuilt into the privilege itself. At least equally strong countervailing considerations would need to be adduced to override that inbuilt interest….it is important that public authorities be allowed to conduct a free exchange of views as to their legal rights and obligations with those advising them without fear of intrusion, save in the most clear case…’.
The Welsh Government is of the firm view that it is highly important to maintain legal professional privilege and that, in the absence of at least equally strong countervailing considerations, any attempt to undermine the principle of legal professional privilege would result in substantial harm.
Legal advisers need to be able to present the full picture to their clients, in this case all UK Government and devolved administrations, which includes arguments in support of final conclusions and any relevant counter-arguments. This is the purpose behind the long-established principle of legal professional privilege.
It is in the nature of legal advice that it often sets out the possible arguments both for and against a particular view. If recipients or providers of legal advice believe that it is likely that the legal advice would be published, especially so soon after being sought and in a complex political environment, then it is unlikely that comprehensive advice would be commissioned or provided. This would be likely to result in substantial harm to the quality of decision-making since it would not be fully informed. It would also undermine the ability of legal advisers and their clients to rely confidently on the protection afforded by the principle of legal professional privilege.
Moreover, disclosure of legal advice has a significant potential to prejudice the governments’ ability to defend its legal interests - both directly by unfairly exposing its legal position to challenge, and indirectly by diminishing the reliance it can place on the advice having been fully considered and presented without fear or favour.