R v Chief Constable of Sussex, ex parte ITF [1999]

CC
decided he could only provide police cover for cross-channel live animal
exports on 2 days per week.
Applicants
argued inter alia that this constituted export ban which was prohibited by Article
34.
House
of Lords accepted that, assuming there had been breach of Article 34,
proportionality would be of relevance in deciding on application of Article 36
(concerning defences).
CC’s
decision held to be proportionate response.
Another
interesting aspect of this case was Lord Cooke’s opinion that traditional
formulation of Wednesbury test – ‘Was
decision so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to
it?’ – was tautologous.
Better
simply to say – ‘Was decision in question one which a reasonable authority
could reach?’
Believed
that CC’s margin of discretion does not therefore differ according to whether
its source be found in purely domestic principles or superimposed European
principles.