Report comment

The point here, however, was not that the decision turned out wrong with the benefit of hindsight. It was an entirely foreseeable consequence and any minister properly considering the options should have taken that into account. The government was told at the time that this would be the effect and chose to ignore the warning, maintaining that it would not have that effect. Presumably if the government had said that it recognised that this was the likely consequence but as a matter of policy chose to take that decision, it would not have been vulnerable to JR - or at least not on that ground.