The High Court has refused to allow campaigners to bring a legal challenge about the government’s decision not to publish “secret” Brexit documents which give details of the likely economic impact of Britain leaving the EU.
Molly Scott Cato, a member of the European Parliament, and Jo Maugham, a barrister, on Tuesday lost their attempt to bring a judicial review challenge centring on the government’s refusal to release a raft of Brexit-related documents to the public.
The Brexit papers include studies looking at the impact of EU withdrawal on 58 sectors of the economy. The documents also include a Treasury report comparing the predicted economic impact of Brexit with the economic benefits of alternative free trade agreements.
Ms Scott Cato and Mr Maugham, who is also the founder of campaign group the Good Law Project, had argued that the release of the documents was vital to ensure a fully informed public debate about the economic impact of Brexit. Their legal case was crowdfunded and raised almost £60,000.
However the UK government has argued that a judicial review is not necessary and says Freedom of Information requests should be submitted instead for the documents.
Timothy Pitt-Payne QC, acting for Ms Scott Cato and Mr Maugham, told a court hearing on Tuesday that “timing was a matter of urgency” and said that making a Freedom of Information request to obtain the documents could take months or even years.
Negotiations about the terms of Brexit are expected to conclude by October 2018 and Britain will leave the bloc in March 2019, the court heard.
“My clients are not historians interested in recording events leading up to Brexit,” Mr Pitt-Payne told the court. “My clients are interested in educating public debate on the terms which the country is leaving the EU.”
A number of people had already made requests for the documents and had failed to obtain them, he said.
However James Eadie QC, the government’s barrister argued that Freedom of Information requests was the correct legal route for such a the request.
On Tuesday Mr Justice Supperstone said he agreed with the government and refused permission to bring a judicial review. Mr Maugham has said he hopes to appeal against the decision.